< 5 March	7 March >

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Metronom Studio[edit]

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

Non-notable film studio. No real coverage in any language that I can find. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has a russian page: Page BOMBA (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BOMBA The existence of a subject on another language Wikipedia doesn't really have an impact on this Wikipedia as the inclusion criteria are not the same. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the references are in Russian, and none appear to be significant coverage of this topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Robinson (musician)[edit]

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

Former member of minorly notable band, not covered as a solo artist by notable sources. Hoponpop69 (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. I cannot find significant coverage of him in reliable sources and he was only briefly a member of a barely notable band, The Prozacs (band). Current sources in the article are just unnotable blogs. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:38, 11 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. Can be restored if transwiki is desired. Sandstein 10:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Psychotechnology[edit]

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

tagged since October 2013[1] for a move to wiktionary, but still here. It should be either moved or untagged. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transwikify. Doesn't seem like it's a topic that would be expanded in the article, and definitely fits more in to Wikitionary than here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a dictdef; nothing that needs moving to Wiktionary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Faulkner[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:BLP1E. She is only known for briefly being a cadet; she wasn't even the first female graduate. The applicable content already exists at History of women in the United States. Despite being mentioned in reliable sources, it doesn't make sense for Wikipedia keeping a standalone article on her. I don't think the GNG bar is that low. There is one book that discusses this event but this review paints the book as a criticism of The Citadel's patriarchy more than any biographical work about Faulkner. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has received continuing coverage over the years and is still receiving coverage, even this week when her conciliatory comments during an appearance at the school [2] drew an attack from Nancy Mace, the first woman to graduate from the school. [3][4] Not a BLP1E and notability is well established by the sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as she has had coverage in the news from the 90s to as recently as yesterday. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply as her admission, the court battle, and her subsequent departure from The Citadel were not a single event. The most recent coverage about her is regarding comments she made during a speech last week, which is another new event, and shows the coverage of her has been WP:SUSTAINED over a long period of time. She also satisfies WP:ANYBIO for "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" as she was the first woman accepted at The Citadel, her entry is what paved the way for four female attendees the next year (one of whom became the first graduate) and the events surrounding her resignation and their significance are still being discussed to this day. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. Regarding WP:BLP1E I think whether criterion #1 applies here is very much a subjective matter; #2 does apply; and #3 does not apply. Hence BLP1E does not require us to delete this article. I think the notability guidelines and the BLP policy are met. However, I think there is a case for redirecting {merging?) with History of The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina#Women in the Corps of Cadets but this is an editorial opinion, appropriate for discussion at Talk:Shannon Faulkner and not a matter for AfD. Thincat (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe she shouldn't be notable, however multiple RSes covering her (evident by just a peek at google news and google books) - make her reach SIGCOV, and its seems aspects of this coverage go beyond the law suit and 1 week stay at the Citadel. [5], [6]. The alternative would be to merge to the citadel, but I'm leaning Keep on this one.Icewhiz (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverage over time, certainly not a BLP1E, as per Lonehexagon. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk)

After doing some improvement to the article, I can clearly see that there's no way this a BLP1E. For example, she was first involved in a 2 1/2 year court case that was appealed up to the Supreme Court. She was covered significantly over that time period. Then she entered The Citadel. This was also extensively covered. Books have been written about her and she's still covered in the news from 1999, 2009 to 2018. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that none of that matters. I acknowledge there are lots of sources that discuss her. The BLP1E argument rests on the fact that she waged a legal battle to get into The Citadel, quit training only hours in, and left the school by the end of the week. All media about her is about that. Nobody knew who she was prior to this incident and absent media inquiries into what happened to her, no one knows who she is now. I don't believe that media coverage generated during someone's 15 minutes of fame counts. To my knowledge, Wikipedia should not be writing about such trivialities, despite the fact that journalists desperate to fill inches and minutes keep talking about it. The presence of reliable sources does not guarantee inclusion. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E is specific about the criteria. It gives three examples. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." There are many events about Faulkner that were reported on, including her admission, the court battle, departure, and her statements afterward. But let's says that counts as one event and look at the other criteria. WP:BLP1E further clarifies, "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." That doesn't apply here as she's still speaking and receiving news coverage years later. Lastly, "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Her contribution is very significant since her court battle is what allowed women to apply to get into the school the next year. Additionally, it was extremely well documented. There's no way WP:BLP1E was meant to apply to a situation like this. It's for when a person gets on stage and flashes the audience during a Superbowl or something. It could be all over the news, but if you never hear about that person again it doesn't make the person signficant, only the event. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a BLP1E - she's received continuous coverage, including for her recent 2018 speech (and whether being there for a week makes her a graduate) - [7][8]. Should she have been covered by the media (and elsewhere) following her 15 minutes of fame? Maybe not - but that's something to take up with the editor of the Washington Post and the New York Times (and all the other sources that cover her) - and not at Wikipedia where we follow sources (which leads us to coverage celebrities and the like, for instance).Icewhiz (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. Missvain (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sustained coverage. Books written about her = passes WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia should not be writing about such trivialities" = WP:TRIVIAL. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Maybe you ought to read WP:TRIVIAL before you cite it. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sahito[edit]

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

Declined prod. Proposing deletion as subject lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate said sources, but were not successful. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Users are welcome to try again with a properly sourced and written page, though.TH1980 (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete multiple similar stubs have previously been deleted. samee ^talk 15:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice for future recreation. Right now the absence of RS indicates it fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication at all that it even WP:EXISTS. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Malcomson[edit]

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

An individual who fails notability, whether you look at it from a GNG or NPOL standpoint. The sources available are primary and it appears the article, particularly the intro, is copied from the lone reference--a big no-no around here. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not convinced that he fails notability criteria, but there is little claim of notability in the article, plus the referencing is woefully inadequate at present. Deb (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did either of you look for sources covering him and his work? FloridaArmy (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the sources you added -- links to groups he is directly associated with, the company that published his book, and passing mentions -- then yes; those are not indicators of notability and, in fact, show just how unnotable he is.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Noting that article looks prima facie notable, a former foreign editor at the New York Times with a long list of books, I started by searching the title of one of his books One Drop of Blood: The American Misadventure of Race my search here: [9]. Right on the first page there are enough reviews in notable publications to carry him past WP:AUTHOR. User:FloridaArmy asks a very reasonable question. Keep and tag for sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep E.M.Gregory said it better than I could - book reviews come up immediately from well-respected sources like The Economist, and I even searched the title of a different book (Splinternet). SportingFlyer talk 04:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple search turned up material that provides the reliable and verifiable sources that establish clear evidence of notability. Alansohn (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Chris Troutman (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Gutmann[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:BIO1E, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MILPEOPLE. There are reliable sources that examine the subject briefly, but only in the context of his relationship to Hitler. (Gutmann was just an adjutant officer who put Hitler in for the Iron Cross.) I don't think the bar for GNG swings that low and the fact that this article has been under-sourced for eight years indicates there was never much coverage on the subject to begin with. Like Stefanie Rabatsch, this is an article about Hitler masquerading as a biography about someone else. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Hugo Guttmann is mentioned in numerous historical texts as being Adolf Hitler's superior officer during World War I, and the man who awarded Hitler the Iron Cross. That alone is a noteworthy enough historical event to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. Beyond this, however, the relationship between these two men has been studied as a possible cause and catalyst for Hitler's later views of Judaism. The post war relationship between the two men has further been studied as one of the best kept secrets of World War II, mainly that Hitler most likely protected Guttmann and advised Nazi security forces to "look the other way" on several occasions, allowing Guttmann to flee Germany and western Europe in the early 40s. To top it off, the character has been mentioned and portrayed in at least two major films. The one disadvantage to this article is that it needs more sources and inline citations. The nominator speaks of years having gone by without much progress, however there is no deadline on this site and what is present now is sourced material and is more than enough to keep the article, especially given the unique historical contribution this man has made. -O.R.^Comms 20:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, being Hitler's Jewish commanding officer for some time (and recommending him for the iron cross) clearly leads to SIGCOV and GNG - for details beyond "just" commanding Hitler for a non-1E period, including the rest of the life of the subject.Icewhiz (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG considering his relationship with Hitler, as stated above. I agree the article needs additional work and RS citing added, but that is not reason for deletion. Kierzek (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Guttmann's connection to Hitler has been a subject of ongoing coverage in reliable and verifiable sources, included in the article and available elsewhere, that demonstrate that he pass the GNG standard. Alansohn (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone saying that the subject knew Hitler, could you point me to a policy, guideline, or essay for that assertion? I don't see anything at WP:HITLER that indicates having been around Hitler makes one notable. In fact, WP:INHERITED says the opposite. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being connected to Hitler is not a notability guideline (no Godwin's law for notability). However subjects, such as this one, who recieved SIGCOV die to their Hitler connection are notable due to SIGCOV, regardless of the motivations of the authors of the sources.Icewhiz (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the community agrees with you. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As in all previous discussions. The nominator has been blocked as a sock. Subsequent nominations should be speedily closed if not made by a well-established editor. Sandstein 12:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable, un-sourced
1. (un-sourced) Categorised as a scientist/mathematician, an aerospace engineer, a libertarian
- there is no a single source supporting a 21st-century American mathematicians and an aerospace engineer notability
- a singe unsuccessful run to represent the 55th district in the 1984 California State Assembly elections makes him not a notable libertarian
2.(un-sourced) No much needed secondary and tertiary sources. After reading his mother's obituary, the article about his unsuccessful run to represent the 55th district, and any of the papers he co-authored, is not possible to conclude that the article is about the same person
3. (not notable) Primary sources - co-authored papers
The list of the papers in mathematics below shows that he co-authored 7 articles with his mother. Out of 10 in the list below 8 of them are cited just 12 times together (self-citations excluded). The average is 1.5 citations per paper. Some of them not cited at all. The only paper cited frequently (900 times) is the "Choosability in Graphs". This paper is about a graph coloring method already invented and developed by Soviet mathematicians (Vizing, Borodin) three years earlier.
Also A. Rubin co-authored other 6 articles in engineering all low cited. Only two of them are cited more that 10 times.
The main problem is: A Rubin's contributions to mathematics and engineering cannot be separated and evaluated independently on the co-authors, therefore it's not possible to get a valid judgement about his scientific work significance and notability.

All A Rubin's papers, co-authored
Mathematics Coauthored with his mother Jean E. Rubin 1. Extended operations and relations on the class of ordinal numbers (1) 2. Independence Results for Class Forms of the Axiom of Choice (2) 3. Kinna-Wagner Selection Principles, Axioms of Choice and Multiple Choice (3) 4. The Cardinality of the set of Dedekind Finite Cardinals in Fraenkel‐Mostowski Models (2) 5. Accumulation functions on the ordinals (0) 6. Weak Forms of the Axiom of Choice and the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis (1) 7. Maximal principles for sets and classes (0) Coauthored by others 8. Bal KishanDass; Siri KrishanWasan; Arthur L Rubin: Burst Distribution of a Linear Code (1) 9. André C. M. Ran , Leiba Rodman & Arthur L. Rubin Stability index of invariant subspaces of matrices (9) self cited 6 times 10. P Erdos, AL Rubin, H Taylor Choosability in Graphs (900) four versions Engineering 1. McEliece, Robert J., and Arthur L. Rubin. "Timesharing without synchronization." International Telemetering Conference Proceedings. International Foundation for Telemetering, 1976. (4) 2. E. Posner, A. Rubin: The Capacity of Digital Links in Tandem (12) 3. T. Truong, I. Reed, R. Lipes, A. Rubin ; S. Butman Digital SAR Processing Using a Fast Polynomial Transform (6) 4. R. J. McEliece, E. R. Rodemich, and A. L. Rubin The Practical Limits of Photon Communication (13) 5. Wallis, D. E., Taylor, H., Rubin, A. L.: FPLA mechanization of arithmetic elements to produce A+B or to pass A only (0) 6. Timothy R. Schempp and Arthur L. Rubin: An application of Gaussian Overbounding for the WAAS fault free error analysis (8)

All A Rubin's papers, co-authored

Mathematics
Coauthored with his mother Jean E. Rubin

1. Extended operations and relations on the class of ordinal numbers (1)
2. Independence Results for Class Forms of the Axiom of Choice (2)
3. Kinna-Wagner Selection Principles, Axioms of Choice and Multiple Choice (3)
4. The Cardinality of the set of Dedekind Finite Cardinals in Fraenkel‐Mostowski Models (2)
5. Accumulation functions on the ordinals (0)
6. Weak Forms of the Axiom of Choice and the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis (1)
7. Maximal principles for sets and classes (0)

Coauthored by others

8. Bal KishanDass; Siri KrishanWasan; Arthur L Rubin: Burst Distribution of a Linear Code (1)
9. André C. M. Ran , Leiba Rodman & Arthur L. Rubin Stability index of invariant subspaces of matrices (9) self cited 6 times
10. P Erdos, AL Rubin, H Taylor Choosability in Graphs (900) four versions

Engineering
1. McEliece, Robert J., and Arthur L. Rubin. "Timesharing without synchronization." International Telemetering Conference Proceedings. International Foundation for Telemetering, 1976. (4)
2. E. Posner, A. Rubin: The Capacity of Digital Links in Tandem (12)
3. T. Truong, I. Reed, R. Lipes, A. Rubin ; S. Butman Digital SAR Processing Using a Fast Polynomial Transform (6)
4. R. J. McEliece, E. R. Rodemich, and A. L. Rubin The Practical Limits of Photon Communication (13)
5. Wallis, D. E., Taylor, H., Rubin, A. L.: FPLA mechanization of arithmetic elements to produce A+B or to pass A only (0)

6. Timothy R. Schempp and Arthur L. Rubin: An application of Gaussian Overbounding for the WAAS fault free error analysis (8)

Note. This nomination shall be kept open for discussion at least seven days. Previous three nominations were closed just after a couple hours.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Taribuk (talk • contribs)

Keep --- ~~h-index of 32~~, Erdos number of 1. This is an extraordinarily irresponsible nomination. And the nominator doesn't get to decide how long the discussion stays open for. This is an obvious speedy and snow keep. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how you got an h-index of 32? Others here are getting much lower numbers. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Erdos number is just a folklore (Chomsky's Erdos number is 4, for example), it's a Wikipedia requirement to keep discussion open at least seven days--Taribuk (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. h-index of 32? I get an h-index of 4. Could this be clarified before closure? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I apologize. I blindly accepted the result of a Chrome plugin instead of counting myself. I struck the h-index claim and I won't be using that plugin any more. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. These tools are unreliable because they cannot distinguish between people with the same name working in different fields. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Which category of notability do you think is passed? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Well, let's take this calmly (please). Speedy keeps have 5 times failed to resolve the discussion, so one might guess there was something to discuss, and I do think we should have this open for a full week this time. We inherently respect Arthur Rubin for his work here on Wikipedia: let us set that aside, as work here is very unlikely to earn notability (if we exclude spending one's life deleting the phrase "is comprised of"). What does that leave? There's one co-authored paper (with Erdős) that has been cited 900 times; and a series of student prizes. He's a notable Wikipedian, but that's not the same as a notable mathematician. As for the politics and the engineering, they are worthy but not notable. I remain to be convinced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur. I have long had doubts about the notability of him and personally, I think we should be extra strict when dealing with the notability of Wikipedians. It's pretty obvious that if Arthur weren't an editor, then it's very unlikely this would ever have existed, and if the maths prize sources were used to try and justify the notability of a young person today, it would be deemed insufficient. SmartSE (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources "Caltech Math Wiz," "The First U.S.A Mathematical Olympiad," and those relating to the Putnam fellowship meet WP:GNG. The Putnam fellowship meets WP:NACADEMIC's standard The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. Meeting GNG and NACADEMIC are sufficient, he does not need to meet WP:NPOL as well. Isolated facets of an article do not need to individually be notable in and of themselves provided there is a notable core. I'm not seeing the relevance of your "Primary sources - co-authored papers" bit. Those are not actually cited anywhere in the current article (some of them are just mentioned), and they have no relevance one way or the other on his notability. An article based on those sources would need to be deleted, but that's not the case here at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: Can you please explicitly state which multiple (3?) sources you think are enough to meet GNG? Only the LA Times article looks good to me. Regarding "highly prestigious academic award or honor" in my mind, this would be something like a Nobel Prize or prestigious award from a national academy, not an undergraduate scholarship. SmartSE (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the full text of "The First U.S.A Mathematical Olympiad" and literally the only content in relation to Rubin is: Arthur Rubin West Lafayette H. S. West Lafayette, Ind.. SmartSE (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly The Putnam Competition from 1938-2008 states only: Only seven people - ... Arthur Rubin... have been Putnam Fellows four times and: Most likely the youngest is Arthur Rubin, who was a winner in 1970 at age 14. SmartSE (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if you're going to nominate an article for deletion which has been kept many times before then you should be prepared to respond to the reasons it was kept earlier. This nomination doesn't do that. The reasons are:

Subject meets WP:GNG, in particular that he was the subject of an article in the Los Angeles Times (amongst others).
Subject meets WP:PROF, specifically points 1 and 2, as demonstrated by the citations of his work and recognition he has received.

You also don't get to dictate how long an AfD lasts just because you nominated it. If some admin decides to close this as speedy keep then you can't stop them. Hut 8.5 21:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say "meets WP:GNG" and mention he had a LAT article. That isn't "multiple reliable sources".

You say "meets WP:PROF points 1 and 2". Does it? Here they are:

"1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."

That seems very doubtful here; co-authoring one paper alongside someone famous does not demonstrate that the impact was due to AR (it was far more likely the famous co-author); and no independent reliable sources have been provided to demonstrate it, so we doubt any such exist.

"2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level."

Well, student awards, even well-known ones, don't come up to that standard, surely. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you've wrapped "multiple reliable sources" in quotation marks, because that makes it look like the phrase is found in one of the pages you're referencing, and it isn't. Sure, we can speculate about whether the impact of that paper is down to Rubin or the highly distinguished researcher he was collaborating with, but it would just be speculation and the mere fact he was collaborating with Erdos at that level says something. The paper does have an extremely large number of citations (over 900 according to Google Scholar), and he is named as a prominent author on it, which is evidence of his impact on the field. Sure, most student awards don't qualify, but we are not talking about a normal student award, indeed the article says it is "widely considered to be the most prestigious university-level mathematics competition in the world", and Rubin is one of a very small number of people to have been named as a Fellow four times. Hut 8.5 22:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Putnam competitions and the Math Olympiads are student level awards/accomplishments and they do not contribute to academic notability per WP:PROF. (Note that WP:PROF explicitly says the following on this point: "Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1.") GScholar gives h-index of about 5 [10]. There is one highly cited paper, with several co-authors, including a very famous mathematician (Erdos). I don't think there is a case for academic notability here. One could argue for passing WP:GNG on the basis of high school and college math competitions, but the case appears to be insufficient to me there. Nsk92 (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- For those who are interested in additional citability data, MathSciNet lists 12 publications by him in total, with top citation hits of 328,4,1,1,1. Nsk92 (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does that catch the engineering citations? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Some, but not all (also for math citations that occurred prior to 2000 MathSciNet coverage is fairly spotty). A WebOfScience search gives more complete results. The paper with Erdos is not indexed there because it was published in a conference proceedings back in 1980, well before WoS started indexing such things. However, a cited reference search for the title of the paper ("Choosability in graphs") does give a list of citations for that paper, about 440 in total. Most are in discrete math publications. The second most cited article in MathSciNet, with 4 citations there ("Stability index of invariant subspaces of matrices"), has 7 citations produced by a cited reference search in the WebOfScience. Nsk92 (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional delete on basis of failure to satisfy WP:Prof until h-index is clarified. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep - as above. By the way, I think the h-index is 6, based on (900, 13, 12, 9, 8, 6, 4, ...), but it certainly isn't much higher than that, and so it is far from meeting WP:PROF. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if I understand the toings and froings, we are agreed that this fails WP:PROF, but there's a consensus that WP:GNG is passed by a) sharing a famous paper and b) being probably the only person to get a Putnam fellowship 4 times over. That at least sounds like a reasonable claim to go along with, without feeling that we're overly subject to special pleading in this case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires substantial coverage in multiple sources. We have yet to find those sources. SmartSE (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm highly skeptical of the good faith of this nomination; the reason for the many past speedy closures is that people with Wikipedia editing disputes with Rubin keep nominating this article for deletion as a way to retaliate. And the past Arbcom case shows both that Rubin has enemies who will persistently snipe at him, and that Rubin has reacted badly enough to that sniping to encourage his enemies to continue with their attacks. Regardless, let's look at the merits of the case.

A single highly-cited paper is probably not enough for WP:PROF. But perhaps as this recent article would argue the problem is with our standards rather than with the article. We should note that it's not just any paper; it's one that introduced a central topic on graph theory (Google scholar lists over 2500 papers that match the phrase "list coloring", so I think the concept has become so commonplace that people don't always cite the original work on it and that its citation count underestimates its influence) and is one of (depending on how you count) the five or ten most frequently cited of Paul Erdős's papers. So it's not merely "he has a paper with Erdős", but "he has a paper that, even among papers with Erdős, is famous". And given the well known collaboration patterns of Erdős, I think we can safely assume that, although Erdős surely provided some of the insights in the paper, a lot of the work of coming up with the problem to work on and making it a paper came from its other authors.

Putting that aside as well, I think he passes WP:GNG for his competition results. (These are explicitly off-topic for WP:PROF, but that means merely that we should consider different notability guidelines, not that he cannot be notable for them.) It's not easy to search publications from the 1970s, but as well as the article about him in the LA Times we have a Newsweek story that covers him in some depth [11] and a New Scientist article with a couple of sentences about him, less in-depth but still an indication of his fame at the time [12]. Even many years later, in 1998, he was still being listed in reliably published sources as one of only three four-time Putnam Fellows [13] and as recently as 2017 he was still being cited as the youngest fellow [14]. And since we have the Putnam, the Olympiad, and the graph coloring work, there's no issue with BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This stuff is too far from me mathematically and I can't really judge the significance of his paper with Erdos. But my feeling is that, in relation to WP:PROF, the correct thing to do in this kind of a situation is to discuss that paper and its influence in greater detail in the List coloring article rather than to have a standalone biographical article. By the way the the List coloring article currently says that the concept of list coloring was introduced by Vadim G. Vizing in 1976. Regarding passing WP:GNG based on the competition results and related coverage, my personal impression is the coverage is too thin for that. WP:GNG asks for coverage that addresses the subject "directly and in detail". The coverage here consists mostly of brief mentions. The 1974 LA Times article definitely provides specific and detailed coverage. I can't view the 1974 Newsweek article you linked, so I am not sure how much is there. But even assuming there are a few paragraphs specifically about him in that Newsweek article, cumulatively the coverage appears to me to be less (in fact significantly less) than what we usually require for passing WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List coloring was introduced independently by Vizing and by E-R-T. At that time, Vizing was not well known within the Soviet Union and the Soviet mathematical literature was not always well-distributed to the rest of the world, so independent rediscovery was more likely (but it still happens often enough today for other reasons). Our article on list coloring used to have both papers in the lead sentence but that was removed two years ago, probably by accident, in an edit by Joel B. Lewis that also broke the grammar of the first sentence. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Vizing was not well known within the Soviet Union" is a false statement. Google Scholar search for "V.G. Vizing" will show you the facts: Vizing was a well known mathematician in Soviet Union whose papers were even published by Springer. "Soviet mathematical literature was not always well-distributed to the rest of the world" makes no sense to me. Erdos was affiliated with Hungarian Academy of Sciences that time and, for sure, he had access to Soviet mathematical literature.--Taribuk (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nsk92: This stuff is too far from me mathematically and I can't really judge the significance of his paper with Erdos. The point is, nobody here should be judging that and it should not require specialist knowledge to determine whether someone is notable or not - it is an objective assessment of the coverage a subject has received in RS. SmartSE (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: Thank you for bringing more sources to the discussion, however let's please stay focussed on them, rather than questioning the motives of anyone involved in the discussion. Regarding GNG though, I still do not see that any of the new sources provide the substantial coverage we require. I echo Nsk92 in regards to the Newsweek article as I cannot access it. If you or anyone else can read it in full, can you please provide a quotation so that the depth of coverage can be assessed? The New Scientist source isn't any help, because as you point out, it is only a couple of sentences. The title of the third source speaks volumes to me: "Fifty Years of Putnam Trivia" (my ephasis) and as with the sources I analysed above under Ian.thomson's !vote, it only mentions his name. I am struggling to access the exact full copy of the fourth source, but from the preview it looks to be same as this which is an update of "The Putnam Competition from 1938-2008" that I already analysed above. SmartSE (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep David Eppstein posted links showing mentions of the subject from 1974 to 2017—over 40 years. That, along with the nature of the mentions (one of only three [eight?] four-time Putnam Fellows and cited as youngest fellow) means notability is satisfied. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale seems at odds with your !vote because, as you concede those are just mentions - a thousand mentions cannot be summed to create substantial coverage. SmartSE (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep this has been AfD'd five times, speedy kept the last three, and based on the state of the article, the nominator brings up no new information and in any case we typically don't delete articles for being unsourced, we delete them for being unnotable (or unable for sources to be found.) The subject passes WP:GNG and has for awhile. SportingFlyer talk 04:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Notability hasn't actually been discussed in any detail since 2009. It is entirely possible that the previous consensus would no longer apply. SmartSE (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @David Eppstein, @Johnuniq, @SportingFlyer About the Putnam Fellows. Wikipedia:Notability (academics) says in 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level: Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1. Therefore we cannot count the Putnam Competition results as a proof of academic notability.--Taribuk (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- True but irrelevant. As I already said, that does not mean that it cannot be used for notability. What it means is that we can't use WP:PROF for notability that way; we have to use WP:GNG instead. As my comment already does. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - True and very relevant. From a general WP:GNG and insufficient we have to move to the particular WP:PROF and sufficient.--Taribuk (talk) 08:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination is rambling and incoherent. As the topic has been well aired previously, we need a better nomination to have another go around. Andrew D. (talk) 08:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this AfD is closed prior to the prescribed 168 hours per consensus here, I shall reopen it. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. As other editors point out, the nomination is incoherent to the point of invalidity. The only substantive argument -- that people whose claimed notability comes entirely from collaborative work cannot be meaningfully evaluated -- is simply nonsense. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and a note to the nominator for wasting our time. This isn't a nomination that has any reasonable basis for deletion and the issues it does raise have been raised and rejected five times before. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is anyone else getting the impression that the nominator is the same person as indef-blocked sockpuppeteer Vujkovica brdo? Compare the arguments above about whether E-R-T could have known about Vizing's work with the ones made by Vb on Talk:Arthur Rubin, and their shared interest in Serbian issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now a new nonsense from A Rubin's friendDavid Eppstein. Of course, I read Talk:Arthur Rubin and extracted useful information found there. Shared interest in Serbian issues? Ha! That makes your friend A Rubin a 21st-century American mathematician for sure! Laughable indeed.--Taribuk (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my analysis above of the sources presented by Ian.thomson and David Eppstein, it is clear that there is only a single source (the LA Times article) providing substantial, in-depth coverage of the subject so WP:GNG/WP:BIO are not met. The Putnam scholarship is clearly excluded from being suitable for meeting WP:PROF too, as is the low h-index. SmartSE (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: The nominator, Taribuk, is a Confirmed sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vujkovica brdo.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am amazed by the amount of bad faith (both proven and alleged) that has been running through these AfD debates. The procedure that struck me most as being anomalous was in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (5th nomination), which was closed as speedy keep after 3 hours with the only votes being 1xdelete and 1xspeedy keep as well as the nomination. I suggest that this 6th AfD be assessed objectively on the basis the available evidence, just as with any other AfD of a BLP, and that the alleged motives of the nominator and anybody else be discounted. I add that, to the best of my recollection, I have had no disputatious encounters with the subject of the BLP in his capacity as an editor of Wikipedia. I ask that the AfD be allowed to run its full term and be closed by an administrator who has had no previous connection with the Rubin story and is not one of the usual suspects. Who are the usual suspects? I don't know, because there is so much subtext here that is unclear to me, but I suspect that a lot of things have been going on under the hood. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Now that the citation record has been established, it is clear that it is not enough to pass WP:Prof#C1. There is one highly cited paper (~ 900 cites) written with a distinguished mathematician and another coauthor. The few other papers published have had coauthors and few citations, so there is little evidence of independent achievement. The student awards do not satisfy WP:Prof#C2. The consensus here, which I agree with, is that WP:Prof is not passed. Neither is WP:Politician. One case for keep that is at least coherent has been made by Eppstein, who argues that although the student awards do not qualify for WP:Prof, they pass WP:GNG when suppoprted by the media references. Other editors have agued that the references do not give the substantial coverage required by WP:GNG. I agree, and agree that there is no pass of WP:GNG either. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Delete does not meet any notability criteria for academics, and even more clearly fails notability criteria for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep subject passes GNG. While this AfD has already outlasted the Wiki career of the bad-faith nominator, it does not need to go a full seven days. Lepricavark (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why Speedy? What's the hurry? There are only four days to go and results will be more accepted if conventions are observed (as they were not in the last AfD). Better to discuss the issue here rather than in a long-drawn-out DRV as occurred after the irregularly closed 5th AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we've now had 9 experienced editors !vote stating that the GNG is met, and yet not a single one has provided details on which multiple sources provide substantial coverage of the subject. Can anyone do so? SmartSE (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- False. Read my comment again. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I replied to it already and you have not provided further information on how the sources your provided are sufficient. Since I've explained in detail why I don't think GNG is met, it would be helpful if someone could explain why it is met. Have you read the Newsweek article? SmartSE (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - You read the comment, replied to it already, and yet felt it appropriate to write "not a single one has provided details on which multiple sources"? Wow, how...truthy. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, I said: "not a single one has provided details on which multiple sources provide substantial coverage of the subject". Surely someone of your experience knows the difference between that and simply "multiple sources"? SmartSE (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Here, let me Google the Newsweek coverage for you since you appear incapable of finding it yourself, and incapable of writing truthfully about others' comments here: "The Pinball Genius When he was 4 years old, Arthur Rubin's parents gave him his first algebra book. At the age of 8, he left his third- grade schoolroom every afternoon to take a calculus course at Michigan State University, where he got the highest grades in the class. By the time he was 14, he was enrolled in advanced mathematics at Purdue University. Thus, at 15, Arthur found himself in the curious position of applying for college— but with a full graduate courseload of mathematics ..." That seems substantial enough for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        The link you provided is just to the issue of Newsweek and a search for Rubin inside that turns up nothing for me, so please don't insult me with lmgtfy. It's not my fault that you did not provide sufficient information for me to assess the coverage. Now we are getting somewhere though - is that all the article or is there more? Or are you only seeing the snippet? Searching for that text still doesn't bring up a full text, but at least I now have enough information to see if someone can access an archive copy at WP:REX. If this turns out to be a full article about him, then I agree that GNG is probably met, but if it is only a couple of paragraphs then it's still not enough. SmartSE (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Thanks to Chris857 at REX, the full copy of the Newsweek article can be accessed at archive.org. You need to create a free account to read it. It is about 4-500 words long so is certainly better than the other sources I've been able to review. @Nsk92 and Xxanthippe: @Johnpacklambert: What do you think? SmartSE (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the full reference to the Newsweek article, year edition, page? I can't get access to it there.The extract given by Eppstein sounds like the sort of credulous GeeWizary that has recently been rejected as a reliable source in the case of another mathematical prodigy Jacob Barnett. If the rest of the Newsweek article continues in that vein it is not a source reliable enough to hang WP:GNG upon. Further, multiple sources are need. An editor notes that nine experienced editors have voted that WP:GNG is met. Many of the Speedy keep votes that are scattered throughout this series of AfDs are light on content. I expect that the closing administrator will be able to assess arguments as well as count votes. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: It is "The Pinball Genius". Newsweek. 1974-06-10. p. 76-77. I think the reason that link didn't work is that I had it out "on loan" - I've now returned it so it should work for you now. Create an account and click the link again and it should take you to the exact page. SmartSE (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article focuses on two facts about Rubin: his Putnam award record, and his paper with Erdos. There's very little else in the article; he's apparently a financial analyst as well as an aerospace engineer professionally, and of course a contributor at this site. There's a plausible argument that a 4-time winner of the Putnam award should be kept based solely on that accomplishment; if it were a comparable collegiate sporting achievement the article would almost certainly be kept (for example, Dave Barclay). Finally, if this is deleted, we'll need to start similar discussions for Reid Barton and Gabriel Carroll. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Most of the challenges of this piece at AfD were Speedy Keeps based on bad faith nominations. There has been no real discussion of the merits of the piece itself for nearly a decade. Notability seems scant, but this is a job for the people well versed in the SNG for mathematicians; I have no opinion other than the fact that a real debate needs to be had. Carrite (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is also a bad-faith nomination by a sock puppet (since blocked) that fails to provide any evidence of consensus having changed, or a coherent argument for deletion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that nominator's nomination is incoherent and his arguments should be ignored. Other editors have made substantial contributions. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Keep One might consider these words from Time magazine: "The Putnam is arguably the most prestigious math contest in the world" (from December 16, 2002), along with other considerations. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threatin[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Article was created by a SPA with a likely COI, see Special:Contributions/LisaGolding. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is No COI. I noticed the need for the article and focused on fulfilling it. Passes WP:MUSICBIO. Meets criteria 4, 5, 9, 11, 12 for musicians and ensembles. Also meets criteria 4 for composers and lyricists. LisaGolding (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain the regular usage of promotional language such as "the famous musician Threatin" and "an award-winning solo artist who recently rose to fame and is considered one of the most influential figures in current Rock music" in your edit summaries? In any case, the subject does not meet criteria 4, obviously does not meet 5 as they have not even released 2 albums, does not meet 9, does not meet 11, and does not meet 12 of MUSICBIO. Also does not meet #4 of COMPOSER. The article contains no reliable sources. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Does meet criteria 4. multiple national & international tours (outlined in article). Meets criteria 5. Numerous releases that include album and 3 “singles” that were categorically released as EPs internationally. (Wikipedia does not make distinction between EP and album content in criteria.) Meets criteria 9 via Artist of the Year award from music publication. (noted in article). Meets criteria 11: received national and international airplay on major radio outlets. (noted in article) Meets criteria 12 via featured on Music Choice television program. Meets 4 of composers via award (noted in article.)

Promotional language not intended or used in article. I did Not view descriptive words in edit summary as being biased or even relevant to scrutiny (since it isn’t part of the article). Again, Promotional language not intended LisaGolding (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you voting twice? Hzh (talk)

You can't vote twice in an AfD discussion, I have struck your second vote. The article does not contain any reliable sources, every reference is related to the subject or to sites such as "toprockpress.com", "celebritymusicscene.com", etc. Nothing in the article is verified, so you cannot cite the article as evidence that the subject meets the criteria. I'm not going to go too deep down this rabbit hole but this is all seems to be an elaborate promotional scheme, which has not worked out due to the article averaging 3 views per day (this is not typical of "an award-winning solo artist who recently rose to fame and is considered one of the most influential figures in current Rock music.") Hrodvarsson (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with prejudice. Article looks pretty but on examination the sources are all primary, user-generated or fake. No coverage in any of the sources where you'd expect a rock musician to be covered, e.g. Rolling Stone, Billboard, Pitchfork, NME, or in any mainstream press (LA Times, NY Times, not even a tabloid). MaxBrowne (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find anything that meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:NMUSIC. Somebody has obviously worked pretty hard on the article, but without independent, non-trivial coverage from reliable sources then this fails the general notability guide. — sparklism ^hey! 10:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost speedy. Promotion for non notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Someone is working hard to turn him into a rock star but it hasn't happened yet. On claims above, touring lacks coverage, eps are not full albums, label is not an "important" one, award is not major, claimed airplay is not national. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's almost comical in it's peacock language ("prominent label"..."highly anticipated"..."released globally"--FWI, I guess wikipedia editors could be considered "authors whose words are read globally," LOL) that is backed up by zero reliable sources. As stated, everything is user generated, self-download, first-person, etc. An obvious attempt by publicists to package a client, including creating content for dubious sources such as "New York Music Review" and "Top Rock Press," which seem to exist only to promote this person. Perhaps it's unfair for this subject, as he may genuinely find success someday and merit an article, but this one as it is is a gross example of how the internet can be abused to hype ones way into notability. (Just for fun, I clicked on the "Followers" link on his Twitter to see how legitimate his fan base is. Unsurprisingly, it's mostly accounts from click farms from the other side of the world.) ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without Prejudice - I think that the SPA accusations for everything related to Threatin might be a little too harsh; LisaGolding might just be someone new to WP who is knowledgeable on the musician but got carried away trying to prove his notability. I did the same back in my early WP days when creating articles on a regional band that I knew about. In any case, I will merely add to the above "Delete" votes that there is evidence that Mr. Threatin exists, but WP:EXIST and WP:TOOSOON are relevant in addition to the other guidelines already noted on the quality of the sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is generally the right course of action to AGF regarding article creation that could just be the product of an overzealous new editor, but there are too many coincidences regarding the creator of these articles and the type of sources being cited. The "New York Music Review" source is particularly egregious: it pretends to be a sister site of the NYT, yet is actually a .wordpress, and seemingly has no other articles on its domain other than the one about the subject of this AfD. Promotional tripe such as this undermines the whole encyclopedia. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking the World[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Article was created by a SPA with a likely COI, see Special:Contributions/LisaGolding. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No COI. Saw the need for the album article and fulfilled it. Passes WP:NALBUM. Meets criteria 1, 6, and 7 for Recordings LisaGolding (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain the regular usage of promotional language such as "the famous musician Threatin" and "an award-winning solo artist who recently rose to fame and is considered one of the most influential figures in current Rock music" in your edit summaries? Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional language not intended or used in article. I did Not view descriptive words in edit summary as being biased or even relevant to scrutiny (since it isn’t part of the article). Again, Promotional language not intended LisaGolding (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You made 10 edits (exactly enough to become autoconfirmed) and since then only edited articles related to Threatin. You are a single-purpose account. Ridiculously promotional language such as "one of the most influential figures in current Rock music" is not "descriptive" and is counterfactual, evidenced by the lack of any reliable sources in the articles you created about Threatin. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Hrodvarsson (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The main article of the bunch related to Threatin is likely to be deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Threatin. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think that the SPA accusations for everything related to Threatin might be a little too harsh; LisaGolding might just be someone new to WP who is knowledgeable on the musician but got carried away trying to prove his notability. As for this album, per WP:EXIST there is evidence that it has been released but that is not enough for a WP article. There is an obvious lack of reliable and significant coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Living Is Dying[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Article was created by a SPA with a likely COI, see Special:Contributions/LisaGolding. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No COI. Noticed a need for the article and created it. Passes WP:NALBUM. Meets criteria 1, 6, and 7 for Recordings. Physical release of single with B-sides indicated it met the requirements for own article. But, understandably could be redirected to album page or artist page. LisaGolding (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a song, not an album. Also the album itself does not meet NALBUM. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NSONG. Sources are entirely primary (artist or record company's own websites), passing mentions in interviews where Threatin speaks about his own songs (also primary sources) or user-generated content (Discogs, iMDb). Richard3120 (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cannot say this meets any of notability requirements for songs when we can hardly verify the song itself in reliable sources.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability that would satisfy WP:NSONG. Hzh (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per previous !voters, the article does not pass NSONG. In the absence of NSONG criteria it would need to meet GNG, which it does not. Chetsford (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is an obvious lack of reliable and significant coverage for this song. The editor of the various articles on Threatin got a bit carried away trying to show notability, but per WP:EXIST this song does not merit an article just because it was released. It has not been noticed otherwise. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Identity (Threatin song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Article was created by a SPA with a likely COI, see Special:Contributions/LisaGolding. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No COI. Saw need for the article and created it. Passes WP:NALBUM. Meets criteria 1, 6, and 7 for Recordings. Physical release of single with bonus songs and B-sides indicated it met the requirements for own article. But, understandably could be redirected to album page or artist page. LisaGolding (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a song, not an album. Also the album itself does not meet NALBUM. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NSONG. Sources are entirely primary (artist or record company's own websites), passing mentions in interviews where Threatin speaks about his own songs (also primary sources) or user-generated content (Discogs, iMDB). Richard3120 (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability independent of the album that would satisfy WP:NSONG. Hzh (talk) 10:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think that the SPA accusations for everything related to Threatin might be a little too harsh; LisaGolding might just be someone new to WP who is knowledgeable on the musician but got carried away trying to prove his notability. As for this song, per WP:EXIST there is evidence that it has been released but that is not enough for a WP article. There is an obvious lack of reliable and significant coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weekend swap[edit]

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

Non-notable website. I can't find any coverage of it anywhere and surprisingly few primary sources too. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet GNG. http://www.weekendswap.com also does not seem to be functioning. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mere PROMO for non-notable start-up.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Culliton[edit]

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

No indication this person is independent notable (not entirely sure his company is either but that's a different story.) I can find virtually no coverage in independent rs. Originally I redirected to the company article but that's since been contested, so here we are. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The world is awash in books and book authors. The article fails to meet GNG due to its lack of reliable independent third party notable sources. There is also a lack of in-depth articles on this author. I could find no book awards given to this author.desmay (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promo for non-notable author of non -notable first book. Searchs on his name [15] and his book [16] produce nothing about his name or his self-published book. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If Need Be[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, failed WP:NSONG. All the sources provided are either associated with the artist, or trivial (short announcements, simple listings, discogs, musicbrainz, etc.) or mentioned as part of an album which does not confer notability for the song. There is no significant independent coverage of the song. Delete or redirect to the album Breaking the World. Hzh (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NSONG. Album also seems to fail NALBUM, and I don't think "Threatin" meets NMUSICIAN either. These articles were all created by a SPA (they made exactly enough edits to become auto-confirmed then only edited articles relating to this person) with a likely COI (see repeated use of "the famous musician Threatin" and other PR language in the creator's edits). Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No COI. Saw a need for the article and fulfilled it. “PR language” not intended and was never included in article. Recent focus on particular artist because I saw the need for the articles & Was trying to be thorough. Passes WP:NALBUM. Meets criteria 1, 6, and 7 for Recordings. Physical release of single with B-sides indicated the need for its own article. But, understandably could be redirected to album page or artist page LisaGolding (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NALBUM is irrelevant for discussion on article about a song, which is judged independent of the album. Please refer to WP:NSONG. Hzh (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NSONG. Sources are entirely primary (artist or record company's own websites), passing mentions in interviews where Threatin speaks about his own songs (also primary sources) or user-generated content (Discogs, iMDB). Richard3120 (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSONG. Sources provided are not independent and lack depth. They are merely associated with the article and recording company. I suggest replacing the page with a redirect to the album Breaking the World.desmay (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Note WP:EXIST; there is evidence that the song exists and was released as a single but that does not justify a WP article. The release has received practically no reliable or significant mentions in the music press. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 13:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Fed Cup Asia/Oceania Zone Group I[edit]

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

Similar to the Americas Group I page, this page is also redundant and is just repeating all the information that has already been created. For numerous years in Fed Cup zonal competition we create a Asia/Europe/Americas Zone main page and then create separate pages for each Pool and the playoffs. This page is just repeating all the information that is already in the separate Pool pages and as well includes numerous mistakes. Keroks (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the article sizes, surely it would be better for Wikipedia to keep these pages (and to fix any mistakes of course), and to delete the pool pages instead? The only additonal information I see in the pool pages is a standings table that can be merged upwards. Also, I'd direct the nominator to read WP:OWN. Iffy★Chat -- 11:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As of now, valid splitting of content (discussions about whether it should be split or not can be resolved on article talk page or on WP project talk with an appropriate RFC, not a rather limiting AfD). One could object on the grounds that's it's an indiscriminate list of match results but WP practice seems to be that this is fine, so I don't see any problem on that front either. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 13:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Fed Cup Americas Zone Group I[edit]

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

This page is redundant and is just repeating all the information that has already been created. For numerous years in Fed Cup zonal competition we create a Asia/Europe/Americas Zone main page and then create separate pages for each Pool and the playoffs. This page is just repeating all the information that is already in the separate Pool pages and as well includes numerous mistakes. Keroks (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the article sizes, surely it would be better for Wikipedia to keep these pages (and to fix any mistakes of course), and to delete the pool pages instead? The only additonal information I see in the pool pages is a standings table that can be merged upwards. Also, I'd direct the nominator to read WP:OWN. Iffy★Chat -- 11:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Same as the other one: As of now, valid splitting of content (discussions about whether it should be split or not can be resolved on article talk page or on WP project talk with an appropriate RFC, not a rather limiting AfD). One could object on the grounds that's it's an indiscriminate list of match results but WP practice seems to be that this is fine, so I don't see any problem on that front either. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:36, 7 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AIX1[edit]

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

Apparently shameless self-promotion, no indication at all of notability. It's already been deleted once as A7, which surely applies to this version too but wouldn't definitively solve the problem. It duplicates Akhadir Recordings Amsterdam (which I've also nominated for deletion) so I redirected it to that page, but was reverted. Delete and salt, please. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails to meet GNG. The sources are trivial and lack depth. It's already been deleted once as A7. Delete and salt. There is no indication that the subject matter of this article will become notable. desmay (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find any evidence that this meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:NMUSIC or the WP:GNG. Might be worth a little salt, too. — sparklism ^hey! 08:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources in the article are not reliable so I did a search. I couldn't find a single example of a secondary, independent source actually discussing the artist or his work. Lonehexagon (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In addition to what is stated above, Earwig's copyvio tool indicates it is close paraphrased from this source Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:32, 9 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Punarnirmaan[edit]

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

No evidence that this response program is notable. Many sources in article, but none I could find which are directly and independently about this program. Fram (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ivecos (t) 18:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not verifiable. I haven't checked all the refs, but of the ones I checked, about half were dead and the other half didn't mention this group. Google search found nothing other than Wikipedia mirrors. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Navnirmaan[edit]

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

No evidence that this organisation is notable. Many sources about the general situation, but few or none about this relief organisation specifically. Fram (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ivecos (t) 18:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ivecos (t) 18:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punarnirmaan; the same references (which mention neither group) are on both pages. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kailas C. Thaware[edit]

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

This is an autobiography (author self-identifies here) that fails to satisfy Notability (academics) or Notability (people) guidelines. No significant coverage in independent, reliable, third-party sources. No evidence of significant research impact per WP:NACADEMIC: Google Scholar lists 3 papers, H-index of 1. This is not intended to disrespect Mr. Thaware, but Wikipedia is not a LinkedIn or CV hosting site, and while the subject may one day meet notability criteria, at this time it appears to be simply too soon for an encyclopedia article. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With no independent reliable sources, this fails WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Plus, as basically a CV, fails WP:NOT. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the article is life details that do not add to notability. The only possible exception is the claim that he is a professor of economics. But I checked RePEc's list of the top 25% of economists in India and didn't find him there. His Google scholar profile shows three publications with only one citation among them, by far not enough for WP:PROF#C1. So there seems to be nothing there. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Keynes[edit]

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

This great-grandson of Darwin, and nephew of Keynes, does not seem notable in his own right. I have added an obit but cannot find significant coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm unfamiliar with the subject, but I see them as passing WP:NACADEMIC#3 for being a Fellow of the Linnaean Society. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An obituary in The Times most certainly acknowledges that someone is notable enough for Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 7 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. WP:V is mandatory. Nobody here has proposed an actual reliable source for the existence of this place under any of the proposed names. Sandstein 12:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orghielleis[edit]

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

Another "unverified" geonames place that locates, imprecisely, to a large blank spot on the ground. It shows up as a dot on a couple of relief agency maps but I found no real text mentions, and there's every likelihood that the data on those maps derives from the same source as geonames: the only features I could correlate besides the largest cities where some of the roads. Mangoe (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Budbud. 92.10.229.24 (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Is it better known as such, in a reliable source? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The entry at GEOnet Names Server, which is fairly reliable, calls it an unverified name for a populated place. By their standards, that means it is "a name from a source whose official status can not be verified by the BGN" (U.S. Board on Geographic Names). If even they are calling it unverifiable, how can it possibly pass WP:V? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Under the current title, it is unverifiable, but "Or Ghielleis" seems to turn up some relevant results; see [17], for instance. That said, I don't know much about geography related articles. @Mangoe and Premeditated Chaos: Thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geoview.info doesn't look like a reliable source to me. Who created it? Is it governmental? Which one? Where does it get its info from? Doesn't have any information or about page that I can see, and the contact page at the bottom of the homepage is a 404. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow for replies to Vanamonde's queries.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Budbud as per the IP editor (who has commented in many of these Somali geo-stub article deletions) and as per Somali wikipedia (coordinates are very similar, but the coordinates on the current page are also very, very imprecise): [18] SportingFlyer talk 17:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for those of you who may be unconvinced by such a differing rename, note that many place names apparently do not have local Somali names in international databases. SportingFlyer talk 17:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reasonably good with creating an article on Budbud but I don't see evidence that this is an alternate name for the town. The corrdinates are significantly different, if nothing else. Mangoe (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're about ten miles apart. There's literally nothing around Or Ghielleis on a map - the coordinates are within <2mi accuracy, but there's barely even a road. There's also nothing that looks like Or Ghielleis on the Somali template linked above. The clear and best thing to do here is either delete this and create Budbud, which clearly exists and has possible sources in an easy search, or move this to Budbud. I don't really care which, but if we move it, we get to preserve the content. SportingFlyer talk 05:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Make it Budbud. 92.10.229.24 is generally knowledgeable about the correct naming for these places, and I don't think Or Ghielleis is a verifiable article title. Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Primal Scream. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Butler[edit]

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

Self created article by subject who regularly adds dubiously or non-sourced content - was essentially a puff piece. Live musician with band (Primal Scream) and hosts small online radio show Ilbogod (talk) 16:42, 6 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 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Notability isn't inherited from primal scream. Szzuk (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Musicians whose notability is band-dependent do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NMUSIC just for being members of bands — she has to be the subject of reliable source coverage in her own right, independently of having her name mentioned in sources that are fundamentally about the band, for a standalone BLP to become earned. But there's no strong claim of standalone notability and no strong sourcing being shown here, and hosting an online radio show on an internet radio stream isn't an automatic notability freebie for a broadcaster either. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as the subject is only notable in correlation with Primal Scream. Coverage is mostly interviews. Burroughs'10 (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G5 Guy (Help!) 10:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jose R Costa[edit]

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

Highly promotional article. Fails WP:BIO scope_creep (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sourcing in article does not establish notability. BEFORE does not show this individual is receiving SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The CEO Magazine - India[edit]

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

A non-notable magazine lacking independent coverage in reliable sources and current sources are either unreliable, primary or self-published. Written by an SPA who appears to have a close connection with the subject. Fails WP:PERIODICAL. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet GNG. Article lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Since the magazine is in English and English is my native language, it should be easy for me to find such sources and I have not found them.desmay (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Killiondude (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cherprang Areekul[edit]

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

The subject does not seem to meet the notability guidelines regarding people. So, it is hereby proposed that the article be deleted or redirected to List of BNK48 members. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is not a question of notability—the subject has been individually profiled in enough publications to satisfy the GNG as a stand-alone article.[19][20][21][22] The question is rather whether there's enough content to warrant a separate article, or if it'd be better to merge and redirect. This isn't really a matter for AfD. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep Well if Paul 012 says is right, notability is OK, and a standalone article is suitable, and hopefully it will be expanded when someone can read those sources and write about this person. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul_012. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 02:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject of the article has been individually profiled in enough notable/reliable publications to satisfy the GNG as a stand-alone article. The article needs to be expanded though as it is not very informative.desmay (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul_012. --Tvcccp (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as the subject has really no personal works and is only notable as a member of the group. Also, most of her content here was already written in the other page. --Ingfa7599 (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Pasut[edit]

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

I am the person in the article requested for deletion. I consider myself as a non-notable and private person and would like the article to be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpasut9 (talk • contribs) 15:37, March 6, 2018 (UTC)

Delete Subject does not appear to meet WP:ENT/WP:ARTIST (borderline at most); per WP:BBLP we ought to respect the subject's wish for the article to be deleted. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep without prejudice to the renomination of individual list articles. There is a clear consensus here that lists of bus routes can be notable and so future discussions should address why a specific list is or is not. Thryduulf (talk) 02:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Lahore[edit]

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

Bus routes are subject to change and aren't permanent thing like public transit systems. We aren't travel guide, nothing encyclopedic about these articles. Other problems are that none of following list have their own article on 'route' or 'station' so we can convert to navigation list. This comes under WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:LISTCRUFT. Störm (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Keep -- There are many lists of bus routes on WP. Just take a look at Category:Lists_of_bus_routes. There wouldn't be so many of these if they weren't understood to be notable. I recommend that nominator withdraw this nomination and go seek consensus for getting rid of everything in that category if it really seems necessary. A deletion discussion is not the place to try to settle what's clearly a policy issue.192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@192.160.216.52: Very interesting. I instead urge you to go and turn this WP:NOTGUIDE into WP:GUIDE so we can turn our encyclopedia into travel guide (which would be very helpful and would make your daily travel easy). You can also use WikiVoyage and WikiTravel btw. Störm (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nominator fails on two points: lists of bus routes are not WP:NOTTRAVEL nor are they WP:LISTCRUFT. For NOTTRAVEL, a list of bus routes is not something you would normally find in a travel guide of, say, Lahore; the guide may tell you to take a certain bus to a certain attraction, which would violate WP:NOTTRAVEL, but I've never seen complete public transit information in an travel guide. Furthermore, it's not crufty since transportation authorities are notable, and the routes they provide are discriminate and non-trivial. There have been policy discussions about bus routes and while I think probably 99% of bus routes don't deserve their own article, I have no problem with a list of bus routes for notable transportation authorities, since it's likely the list will be notably/reliably sourced, which I think is the case here. SportingFlyer talk 17:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- See WP:BUSOUTCOMES, which states: Articles about individual bus routes are rarely notable; recommendations to merge into a suitable list article are common. If these list articles weren't notable, why is the common outcome that articles on individual bus routes ought to be merged into them?192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the top, it is written that It is intended to make up for a deficiency considered overly detailed for inclusion in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

Funny, that's exactly what it says at the top of WP:LISTCRUFT, which you cited as a reason for deletion. What's your point? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See recent consensus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Multan. Clearly, Wikipedia isn't DIRECTORY. Neither page has reliable sources to verify these very dynamic routes and aren't useful for any encyclopedia (I don't think Britannica Encyclopaedia will ever have such type of articles. I know we are different as we are online). Störm (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajf773:, @Charlesdrakew: who participated in previous AfD. Störm (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're canvassing for delete votes? Give me a break, read WP:CANVAS, and stop doing it.192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What a dishonest comment that is. See these consensuses: [23], [24], [25]. And so what?192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@192.160.216.52:, @Störm:, To avoid issues of canvass I will ping everyone from those three related AfD's; AFD1, AFD2, AFD3: @Davey2010: - @Shawn in Montreal: - @DESiegel: - @DreamLinker: - @Bejnar: - @Charlesdrakew: - @Northamerica1000: - @PennySpender1983: - @Ritchie333: - @SoWhy: - ~~SineBot~~ - @Class455: - @Tvx1: - @Nightfury: - @Cbs527: - @Pepper: - ~~AnomieBOT~~ - @Feminist: - @Epicgenius: - @Blythwood: - @James Allison: - @RickyCourtney: - @Musa Raza: - @SounderBruce: - @Bri: - @Wiae: - @RickyCourtney: --- Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How in the world do you think that's going to help? I just found those three keeps, and the nominator found a couple deletes, but there's no way to tell if nom's examples are representative, if my examples are representative, or if the union of the !voters on the two sets is representative. You're also canvassing, and I don't apove of it even if it makes the outcome of this discussion more likely to be one of which I do approve. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By informing all of the participants, I am not making a biased or subjective opinion on who should be informed or not, and having additional comments from interested contributions is good, I have seen it written before that if informing people from a prior AfD, you should inform all of them. Though pinging two bots was not needed (oops). Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might not be making a biased selection, but the nom made a biased selection of deletion discussions for one purpose, then I made a biased selection of some other discussions to counter nom's selection. The union of two biased selections is not an unbiased selection, it's another biased selection. The fact that you took a biased selection and chose all members of it doesn't make it any less biased. This is basic Sampling theory. Probably this AfD is FUBAR at this point and nom should withdraw it. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of trying to draw comparisons between [[List of bus routes in Hong Kong] and Sabaragamuwa Province (Sri Lanka) bus routes is hard enough anyway, this is clearly an attempt to make new policy (ie. a consensus that all articles which are lists of bus routes are deleted). So I am perfectly allowed to inform everyone that may be interested that I can find. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's so much variation here it's hard to speak in generalities. But I think the combined notability of for example, all the bus routes in Hong Kong is enough to pass notability. And Wikipedia has plenty of directories in it. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nominator. None of the bus routes in any of the lists are notable and none of them have any encyclopedic purpose other than to be used a s a travel guide. If someone wanted to find out bus route information they should be going to the transport authority's official website. Not here. Ajf773 (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Ajf773 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is perfectly within their rights to notify other users to AfD discussions - this provides a broader consensus. I have two of the articles concerned on my watchlist as well as Deletion sorting/Lists so there is zero chance I would have missed this one. Ajf773 (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break. The nominator notified two people who !voted delete on one single AfD. That's clearly canvassing whether you would have missed it otherwise or not. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. I follow these types of transport articles all the time and regularly engage in debates. Stop having a whinge because some people aren't on your side. Ajf773 (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the only two canvassed editors !voted delete, you actually have no evidence concerning what I'm having a whinge over, to use your inappropriately personalized terminology. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could just get an account like every other serious user. Ajf773 (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What an extraordinarily unfalsifiable statement that is! Since you have no way of knowing which IP editors are the same as which other IP editors, you have no way to know whether or not any given IP editor is serious. I admit that it's possible to tell if an IP editor is not serious, but not if one's serious. Why don't you stop hiding behind your username and edit as an IP like other serious editors? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite simple. An IP can remain anonymous and can change their address from time to time. Which is why they get blocked from protected articles. I have nothing to hide by having an authentic user name. Ajf773 (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Many "List of bus routes in X" become outdated, I've witnessed a good 3-4 bus routes here that haven't been updated in over 5 years (This was years ago mind), Back in 2014 myself and others had deleted well over 100 UK bus route articles because of notability and reliability issues, My common perception of these have been "If one wants to view a bus service route then they should visit that operators website" .... Ofcourse we're an encyclopedia and so we should cover all sorts of topics but unfortunately with these types of articles bus routes are never reported on and unfortunately many bus timetable cites all become dead,

I personally believe these all fail NOTDIRECTORY in that we're essentially providing a bus timetable (many have times, prices etc) (There's disagreement over whether these actually fail NOTDIR but I personally believe they do), These also IMHO fail GNG because of the lack of sources etc,

And before someone screams "WE HAVE LIST OF BUS ROUTES IN LONDON SO YOU'RE BIASED!!!!!!" ... Yeah I personally think that should go too!, Anyway IMHO fails NOTDIR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Davey2010 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging editors who have participated in previous transport and bus-related AFDs is NOT canvassing, Might I suggest you drop the stick ?, You !voted Keep so shut up and allow others to have their say. –Davey2010^Talk 19:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No stick involved, friend. I expressed a concern is all I did. Why don't you let me express my concerns, you express your concerns, and the Wiki will roll on. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I express my concern that your concern was completely unfounded? Since when is recruiting editors to disagree with your position considered a violation of WP:CANVASS? Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because those aren't concerns - They're you attempting to have these articles kept regardless ..... But as for the whole CANVASS thing there's 2 points to this - One is that pinging previous AFD participants is absolutely fine, The other point is that Prince himself !voted Keep .... So I'm sure if Prince wanted to canvass then I or others wouldn't be here now..... –Davey2010^Talk 22:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're trying to graft some kind of intentionality element onto WP:CANVAS. I don't see that the canvasser's intention matters at all. The point is that if people are going to be pinged their names ought to be selected in an unbiased way. That didn't happen here. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I was hoping the whole striking one by one wasn't going to happen .... but it has ..... So now we're at that stage it's simply easier to nominate them one by one (which is what you really should've done in the first place). –Davey2010^Talk 14:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As per SportingFlyer above. Also, we don't not have articles on things just because information about those things changes periodically. That's just completely ridiculous. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. There is no encyclopedic value and is simply acting as a travel guide. If, however, there is content, supported by secondary sources, related to the change in routes, etc. then it would be work keeping that content (and only that content). Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – for reasons mentioned above. If deletion is determined, I would like to Userfy List of bus routes in Metro Vancouver. Northwest (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep (for the major cities at least) - (Thanks for the ping) We have many bus route list articles on Wikipedia that have been well established for years, so this sudden nomination of a whole load of them is completely absurd. I strongly suggest that the nominator withdraws their nomination, or remove the list of bus routes of major cities from the nomination. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 22:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them DO deserve to be deleted though, as per the nominator's rationale. We should at least attempt to narrow down the obvious deletes, to the maybes, to the keeps. Ajf773 (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, The Sri Lankan province ones are non notable, but all the lists from cities such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Calgary, Edmonton etc are all notable and shouldn't have been nominated in the first place. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 22:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Class455 Done. What are your thoughts for remaining ones. Störm (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Class455 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

192.160.216.52 what the hell is wrong with you? You’ve been been told numerous amount of times that a ping is not canvassing. Please read WP:CANVASS before you make such statements. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Störm thank you for listening, I think that Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, the Chinese cities (bar Taichung) Calgary and Winnipeg should be kept, the other ones should be deleted, since Provinces are not as notable as cities. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that lists for cities are more notable than lists for provinces is merely your opinion, without any basis in policy.Charles (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N, WP:GNG??? Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 11:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Notability is not inherited from the cities.Charles (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this proposal would wipe out a huge amount of meterial. It's also not clear why these routes were nominated and other lists of bus routes ignored. Several of these pages provide a good overview to travel options which you would not get by having to search through web sites for all the bus operators in a city. A more constructive approach would be to discuss this in each Talk pages with a view to improving content, and failing that then possibly nominating the list for deletion. Teraplane (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this AfD needs to be deletion sorted into a lot more categories than they currently are - does anyone mind if I do this, or should I refrain since I've already voted? SportingFlyer talk 01:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, I suggest as Pakistan is already included to add all the other countries related to the lists. Ajf773 (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These have no encyclopedic purpose. We are not a travel guide.T v x1 02:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Tvx1 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - apart from anything else, too many lists of different standards bundled together: at the very least, there should have been individual discussions on the obscure ones. Also, as pointed out above, WP:NOTGUIDE doesn't apply. A time-wasting nomination Eustachiusz (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are notable bus routes in quite a few of these lists, confirmed by either third party references that are already included in the lists or that can be found. Examples from the List of bus routes in Edmonton alone show various third party references including 1, 2, 3, 4.. and that just shows examples from one news source and that are currently in the article. A search through other newspapers and other sources show other articles, confirming notability of said routes. A look at WP:NOTGUIDE shows no application to this context. To quote from the policy, "Not the telephone number or street address of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées."... neither this nor any other excerpt from that policy seemingly has any application here. - Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 03:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanstrat: Edmonton removed. Störm (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and SNOW close. We should not be doing mass-AFDs like this for systems that only share a vehicle type (and barely at that), but no other commonalities. The Vancouver list, for example, has hundreds of references and could be cleaned up to a respectable standard as a standalone list. Sounder Bruce 03:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: Vancouver list is no more on AfD. Störm (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although List of bus routes in Metro Vancouver is referenced only by a list of bus timetables, all obtained from the same website. Ajf773 (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that SounderBruce (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – some of these lists are poor, some just have a list without additional information. However, this is not a rationale for deletion, and it does not mean the lists are inherently unencyclopedic. There are many notable bus routes around the world as pointed out above, with in-depth coverage in the media and literature. There are current and historical ridership figures which are encyclopedic, even if they might not appear in (most of) these articles. The evolution of routes over time could also be interesting and fitting for Wikipedia, although I don't think any of these lists currently include such information. In any case, the rationale for deletion doesn't stand. Bus routes don't actually change very often compared to, say, sports statistics, and the rate of change isn't a reason to delete either one. Not sure about having articles on 'route' or 'station' – what does that mean? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 07:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Lahore is one of the oldest cities in the world, and its routes are notable.—TripWire^{________ʞlɐʇ} 07:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How are they notable? Ajf773 (talk) 07:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The city is Notable, by extension, so are the routes.—TripWire^{________ʞlɐʇ} 08:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is NOT inherited. Your comment is an arbitrary statement that isn't even backed up by any reasoning. Ajf773 (talk) 09:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt the bus routes are notable based solely on being n a notable city, but they are much more likely to be notable if the city is well known and notable. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except, there is nothing to establish that, especially with the sources provided. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In theory however, the bus routes in Hong Kong are more likely to be covered by a secondary source that the bus routes in Nowhere Else, South Australia. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, sure, but it sure is connected with the notability of the subject (the city of Lahore in this case). The transportation system of Lahore is notable enough and itself has an article.—TripWire^{________ʞlɐʇ} 09:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per above arguments - this AfD is a mess. I would recommend merging the Sri Lankan ones however there isnt enough general sources to keep it going. I would recommend renomination of these, and these only. The only one I would delete would be Huizhou. The rest IMO can be kept. SNOW keeping isn't an option owing to !delete votes. Nightfury 08:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Nightfury (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

192.160.216.52 A ping isnt canvassing. Nightfury 13:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A ping is canvassing if the set of editors pinged was selected by a biased method. The list of editors pinged here came from a set of five previous AfDs, two of which were chosen by the nom to make a biased point and three of which were chosen by me to make another biased point. Then a third editor decided to use those five AfDs, chosen for entirely unrelated reasons, to provide a list of editors to ping. I am concerned that that's canvassing, and that's what that template is for. Of course the closing admin is free to ignore it, and I fully expect that they will, but I still feel that it's important to express my concern. The Wiki works better if everyone shares their honest opinions! 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

192.160.216.52: I suggest you read WP:CANVASSING. Nightfury 13:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Now that everyone has been pinged. We are not a directory of bus routes, or anything else. Some editors have asserted that some lists are inherently notable and others are not, without making any policy based case. It cannot be snow keep when a number of editors have made policy based case for deletion. WP:OR, WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTDIR and WP:FANCRUFT all have a relevance here and as most routes are commercial opperations there is a risk of using Wikipedia for advertising and promotion.Charles (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Charlesdrakew (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is of course the option of moving them all to Wikivoyage, which is a travel guide, and using redirects. Prince of Thieves (talk) 10:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikivoyage didn't want lists of airline destinations, which users claim violated WP:NOTGUIDE; I would argue something similar here, people who want to maintain a travel guide have no interest in a list of all bus routes in a city, but rather an interest in telling you which bus routes take you to which tourist destinations. SportingFlyer talk 04:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close - per IAR if for no other reason. Bundling a large group of articles connected only by general topic area is a recipe for "no consensus". Even if there was indication that the community was leaning toward "lists of bus routes" being a non notable subject (which there isn't), bundling together lists from separate continents cannot possibly lead to a consensus. John from Idegon (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: I believe the intention is to gain a "all lists of bus routes should be deleted per WP:NOTDIR" type consensus. Which as a rationale applies equally to all lists of bus routes regardless of where they are or how well sourced they are. Prince of Thieves (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And clearly that is a meta issue which is not what AfD is for. A discussion should be held to clarify the notability guideline. Thanks, Prince of Thieves. John from Idegon (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, maybe this would be better suited for an RfC on WP:VP/P. Prince of Thieves (talk)

Delete. Bus route articles are not encyclopedic. They are also difficult to maintain and the time could be better spent on educational articles. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and there appears to be nothing historic about this bus route.desmay (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even bothered to read the articles? These are a list of bus routes, not individual articles about bus routes in detail.Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my opinion above listed articles (I've striked some) should be deleted per WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Also, closing admin should see the fanish comments of 'strong keep', 'speedy keep', 'procedural close' and other like 'very useful for traveling purposes' and many others. There are very few above keep comments that cite policy. Thanks. Störm (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them should be nominated again singularly if that is the case (the Sri Lanka ones in one bunch). Most others need to be culled down to remove the obvious travel guide content. Ajf773 (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just read through all the keep votes again and many of the comments aren't "fan-ish" but rather are because there are a lot of users pointing out the myriad problems with this current AfD. WP:NOTGUIDE doesn't apply here for the reasons I've described above - this isn't information you would find in a travel guide - this is something you might find in a book on bus transportation in a given city (like the cite in the Hong Kong list), which doesn't tell people how they should travel around an unfamiliar place, but rather describes how transportation has developed in that specific city. You've struck a few votes but you claim the rest should be deleted per WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY - why are the ones you struck any different, if those are the criteria you don't think they meet? If anything, you should withdraw your nomination, figure out if any of these articles don't pass WP:GNG, and renominate on those grounds. In that case, you might get the Sri Lanka ones deleted. SportingFlyer talk 04:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, if the article replicates content that can be found on a transit authorities official website, then it's a travel guide. If the article goes above and beyond that, by inclusion of secondary sources demonstrating the importance of that in a city, then it's encyclopedic. However I don't feel List of bus routes in .... articles accomplish that. Better examples are Bus transport in Singapore or Buses in Malta where such content can be described in detail. Individually, bus routes, are almost always non-notable. List of bus routes in London is a notable exception to that. Ajf773 (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters, but I disagree with you on the interpretation of WP:NOTTRAVEL, though I think you're absolutely right on notability grounds. As noted above, most routes are non-notable, but I think the routes as a list can be. I think WP:NOTTRAVEL gets used too much on transportation AfD's since it's related to travel instead of excluding what it's really meant to exclude, so forgive my frustration. SportingFlyer talk 04:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bus routes are not subject to the sort of change that WP cannot handle. For each of the places mentioned we probably have at lease 2 or 3 WPedians who can keep track of the situation. That's more than we have for most all BLPs, and BLPs are much more sensitive articles where keeping up with changes is much more important.

Bus routes do not change form from day to day like exchange rates, or year to year the way the student numbers of education organizations do, and usually not even every 2 or 4 years in the manner of election statistics. (Of course, I am judging by what I know, which is the US, and particularly NYC. Each of the 7 bus routes nearest my house has changed at most twice in the last 35 years (except temporary changes for construction and the like. Looking at maps of other cities I know over a long period, it's similar. It may be completely different in some of the other places here, but each place would each have to be considered separately.

It's reasonable that they change so rarely. They're important to urban infrastructure. They define neighborhoods, they affect residence and employment patterns. They concern local politicians and local communities. There is often a considerable political effort needed to change them. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:TRAINWRECK. At least some of the bus routes pass WP:N, so they should not be systemically deleted. Re-nominate if you want to. feminist (talk) 08:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP as per Prince of Thieves above, and as per WP:PRESERVE. This is an attempted policy change, and should not be done via a deletion discussion. This sort of mass nomination is rarely a good idea, as significant differences in notability cannot be examined in the needed detail. A list may be more notable than any individual item on it, and the guidance that individual bus routes are rarely notable does not automatically apply to lists of routes. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per IINFO and NOTTRAVEL. In the alternative, procedural close and move discussion to an RfC. James (^talk/_contribs) 20:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.</noinclude>

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

The result was keep. Early close per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTCLEANUP. (non-admin closure) VQuakr (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Shape of Water (novel)[edit]

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

This year will mark the article's eleventh anniversary of being completely unsourced, and a quick Google search shows that not much could be found to change that. On top of that, 90% of the article is a plot summary, the rest just the introduction (of which nothing re-appears in the body). The author might be notable but that does not make the book notable. Taking this into account, the book shows neither a) sources, b) content, or c) notability, and should be deleted. If reliable, in-depth retrospective reviews suddenly pop up, the article can be recreated, but the present shape is just not acceptable in an encyclopedia. Lordtobi (✉) 15:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Comparing Google Books search results with both the English-language and the Italian-language title, the latter seems to have better results. I've notified WikiProject Italy at WT:ITALY to see what editors fluent in Italian can determine from the results. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case and if the article was kept, the next logical step would be to move it to the native title per WP:COMMONNAME. Lordtobi (✉) 15:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~I agree. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)~~ I found a couple of sources about the novel using its English-language title, so I would support that per WP:ENGLISH. I've created a redirect for the Italian title. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this the book the movie is based on? Nothing in the article says so (I've never seen the movie so I can't compare the plots). Whether or not it's the source material for the book, this is exceedingly difficult to search for as most hits are for the film. And I'm surprised there are not more sources out there for a 24-year-old book that (possibly) spawned a successful movie. Even some fairly basic sources, a few reviews, some sort of profile of the novel based on interest in the movie -- that would go a long way towards notability. Perhaps there are some useful sources in Italian, but failing that, this could end up being a strange delete. The way the article is written is a problem and would need serious editing and some more contextual, non-plot text -- if sources are found. freshacconci (✉) 15:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This book is not related to the movie.192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In that case, if the article were to be kept, we'd need to hatnote this because it's confusing. The automatic assumption is that this would be the source of the movie -- that's what I thought. Using the Italian title would help as well. freshacconci (✉) 15:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- There are plenty of reviews in English even, but many more in Italian. Perhaps it's hard to find them via the internet because the book was published in 1995 but the book easily passes WP:NBOOK criterion one, therefore. For instance, see what Publisher's Weekly has to say: "When he introduced Montalbano in The Shape of Water in 1994, Camilleri was 69 years old. The book established the author’s international reputation." The article goes on to discuss the circumstances of Camilleri's writing of the book. Also the book has been written about in books, like see e.g. this one. The guy is like John Grisham in Italy, which also speaks to the book's notability.192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Publishers Weekly book review here and this academic article and extensive coverage in the author's biography. I support keeping its English-language title as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plus note If you search "'The Shape of Water' Camilleri" you get more useful hits than "The Shape of Water novel". A quick googling finds a few good hits, and with the book listed by 192.160.216.52 above, I'd say this passes WP:GNG. On its own, being adapted for a BBC series is not notable per WP:NOTINHERITED, but given the handful of English source and probably more in Italian, that goes a long way towards establishing the impact of the novel. freshacconci (✉) 15:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:NEXIST, we evaluate articles on their potential, given the existence of sources, not on the current state of sourcing in the article. This is the first in a long and extremely popular book series. In addition to the sources mentioned above, and the extensive coverage of the series in both English and Italian, substantial English language content about this book includes The New York Times ("savagely funny police procedural") [26], London Review of Books [27], Los Angeles Review of Books [28]. Notability is very clear and the article can be improved to demonstrate it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per "Keep" votes above. The author is unquestionably notable and his books are bestsellers, even if not specifically in the English-speaking world. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, in addition to pw review, found the following: New York Times - "Crime" (short but sweet:)), Booklist, and Kirkus - "The Shape of Water: From the Critics" (nooo, not tradies!!!:)), London Review of Books - "The Yellow and the Black" (need a subscription). Coolabahapple (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : if deleted then all the Template:Inspector Montalbano have to be deleted ! --AXRL (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename this book and every other book in the series to their original Italian titles. JE98 (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, I just started a move discussion for it: Talk:The Shape of Water (novel)#Requested move 7 March 2018. JE98 (talk) 06:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient number of book reviews in English and many more in Italian. The book passes WP:NBOOK. The highly respected Publisher Weekly indicates: "The book established the author’s international reputation." desmay (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Pundir[edit]

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

A non-notable actor with only one major acting role in a non-notable film and no significant coverage in reliable sources except this which reads like an interview published in 2013. I'm not finding any proof that his debut film Soul-met was ever released so fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one of thousands of non-notable actors whose articles bloating Wikipedia make it hard to find useful information.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Future Career College[edit]

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

Nothing notable regarding this college. This private college fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established Dreamspy (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Deb Under G3 and A11. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency of Hillary Clinton[edit]

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

Absolutely ridiculous idea for a topic. I can't quite call it a 'hoax' as written though, so there isn't a valid CSD criteria. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 14:04, 6 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. No issue with draftifying, so happy to provide the content to anyone who wants to incubate it until such time as notability is achieved. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mamadou Guirassy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A footballer who does not appear to have played beyond college or Guinea U-23 National level. He has been drafted by the Portland Timbers but has not yet played so does not meet WP:NSOCCER. References are not independent, reliable sources and a search for additional sources does not throw up any significant coverage so does not meet general notability guideline either. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not meet WP:NSOCCER, probably because it's WP:TOOSOON. Rather than wipe out the article, the best solution would be to WP:DRAFTIFY and allow the article to be moved back into mainspace once he takes the field and NSOCCER is satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - may be notable soon, but not at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Per Fenix down. But Salt is unnecessary because this article is not recreated repeatly. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but also fine with draftify/userfy. Not currently notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article still fails, if it gets created a third time then maybe call for a SALT. Govvy (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sead Studios[edit]

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

Promotional company directory listing. Zero sources in the article, and searches don't reveal anything better. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, and fails the proposed new notability guideline for corporations as well. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 13:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. So Why 14:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. So Why 14:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. So Why 14:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete unreferenced advertising, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already tried speedy as A7, it was declined by SoWhy. I don't think it is quite blatantly promotional enough to be G11ed though. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 14:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I declined the speedy on the article based on the claims it contains, since a subsidiary (of a subsidiary) of a notable company can almost always be redirected or merged into the notable company's article or a list of their subsidiaries per WP:ATD and usually, that's what I would !vote for in such an AFD, considering that Media Prima already contains a list of subsidiaries and the studio might be a useful search term. However, after searching for it, I could not even find any sources that confirmed that this subject is actually a subsidiary (never mind any sources that would establish notability), so that removes the ATD possibility. If anyone can confirm that they are a subsidiary, consider this a redirect-!vote. Regards SoWhy 14:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, redirect to The Amazing Awang Khenit. The show seems notable enough and the studio's name is a potential search term. Regards So Why 14:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there is anything that is significant and sourced, it should be merged with the parent company article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe it merits a redirect as there is nothing notable about this company. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 14:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- How is notability relevant when it comes to deciding whether to redirect? The studio's name is a plausible search term for people familiar with the show imho. Regards So Why 14:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how plausible it is for someone to be searching for The Amazing Awang Khenit (an animated cildren's series) using "Sead Studios". In the unlikely event that they are looking for Sead Studios, landing at The Amazing Awang Khenit isn't going to help them much and wont be where they wanted to end up. Redirects are cheap, but we don't have to throw every search term at the nearest thing that is tangentially related to it. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 15:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Pure advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technology Across the Curriculum[edit]

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

Can't find any real sources to indicate that this particular program at George Mason is particularly noteworthy. As it currently stands the article is a blatant advert and seems to have been written more as a prospectus for the course to gain students than as an encyclopaedic article. As a result it falls afoul of WP:Advert. Canterbury Tail talk 13:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 14:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clickair destinations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been unreferenced since 2008. It fails WP:V. A BEFORE search today brings up nothing except the use of the Clickair brand used by Vueling. As a matter of history, the article could be merged with Vueling or Vueling destinations, but it cannot sustain a separate article. Rhadow (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it absolutely can - it's an article that can be referenced and updated, which I've already started. Many sources are in Spanish since it's a Spanish airline. The fact the airline is merged/defunct has no bearing as to whether it's notable: it's whether it can be sourced properly, and even though it hasn't been around for a decade, there are still enough sources in even a cursory search. SportingFlyer talk 17:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As you've been told several times, these articles can be verified and are notable. Knock it off with these AfD's that just seem rather POINT-y at this point. Smartyllama (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources are there for anyone who wants to make an effort. Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Azeem Ahmed Tariq[edit]

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

Not part of significant event, coverage should continue if that was significant for an encyclopedic entry. Fails WP:NPOL. Störm (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still mentioned as a "great leader" by prominent Pakistani politicians. His murder is still a source of controversy in Pakistan. Plenty of sources, among them academic works: [29], [30],[31] , [32],[33], [34] and more. 37.117.118.138 (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Easily meets WP:GNG. Widely discussed in the scholarly literature. Look at this GBOOKS search for an idea of how this nomination is one more in a series of extraordinarily misguided deletion discussions initiated by this nominator.192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsin Zulfiqar[edit]

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

Non-notable writer, no significant coverage. Fails WP:NWRITER. Störm (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete The article has been effectively abandoned since 2007. There are no inline references, and the links have a significant amount of bitrot, but [35] still works. It's a family profile, and isn't the type of coverage that demonstrates notability. It's unclear whether he's primarily a writer or an activist or an educator. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham Skyline Productions[edit]

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

Non-notable company. There are some sources that have passing mentions, but nothing that goes in-depth. MT Train^Talk 12:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They appear to have produced a single 2012 music video, hardly an accomplishment worthy of an article, then disappeared without a trace. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claims of significance for a production studio Atlantic306 (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 14:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zena Brody[edit]

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

A DC Comics editor who does not appear to be indepedently notable. References are to one piece of article coverage about the history of romance comics [36](very interesting stuff BTW) but not her personally. Fails WP:NBIO to my mind. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pioneer woman comics editor. Dsp13 (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable comics editor from an era without search engines. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A BEFORE finds a number of RS not contained in the article which, when taken in whole, indicates it passes GNG. Chetsford (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spoon Guru[edit]

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

Non notable company. Fails WP:ORGIND. scope_creep (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable. Written by a sock it appears. Paid editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Telegraph is the only source that comes close to being useful for meeting WP:CORP but that's clearly just a piece of churnalism rather than real, independent coverage. This is just yet another small start up that has paid someone to promote them here. SmartSE (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SmartSE hit it on the head with the churnalism comment. Sources do not go into proper and verifiable depth to warrant an article. As it stands, it is very nearly unambiguous advertising. Unfortunately, there are many articles on Wikipedia that are of similar quality- non-notable startups with a distinct flavor of paid promotion. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. Appears to be promotional. DaveApter (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage exists but it is mentions or routine announcements such as partnerships and hiring of executives. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:11, 6 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shery Ahn[edit]

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

A Bloomberg TV reporter. No evidence of notability other than doing the midday news, and no real reliable sources (passing mentions, videos of her at work, a directory listing, and her Facebook page). Calton | Talk 08:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same issues as at David Ingles and Tracy Alloway. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough. They host a news program on a significant media outlet. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any sources for proving that person is "notable enough"? D4iNa4 (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is not there, with the sources mostly being single sentence name checks. Non notable per lack of SIGCOV.104.163.148.25 (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hosting a news program on a major media outlet does not confer notability - especially during a time where a large portion of the public distrusts major news outlets. Reliable third party sources are not writing about this person.desmay (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable subject. Just mentioned a few times because the television channel is popular. D4iNa4 (talk) 22:39, 7 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Ingles[edit]

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

Almost content-free listing -- not even a bio -- of a Bloomberg TV reporter. The only source is his company bio. Calton | Talk 08:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same issues as at Shery Ahn and Tracy Alloway. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete lack of proper sources. Notability is not established by just holding down the job-- people have to write about you.104.163.148.25 (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Given no further opposition from previous delete !voters after Nick's improvements, and TH1980's apparent change of !vote, I'm closing this as a keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 14:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adina Apartment Hotels[edit]

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

Article was originally submitted to AfC and rejected as promotional. COI author took it upon himself to move to article space. Indications of promo remain, in addition to likely failing WP:NCORP. While there is some media coverage, this is mostly about usual corporate business, such as new hotel openings. Other sources include booking portals, hotel listings, reviews or other related promotional contents. Therefore WP:FAILN. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Nothing remotely notable about this company which has no independent, significant coverage. In no way meets WP:CORPDEPTH. The article is merely advertising masquerading as encyclopaedic content. Fails WP:ARTSPAM. Kb.au (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article reads like a puff piece and lacks any neutral sources to establish notability with.TH1980 (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional, weak sourcing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I question whether WP:BEFORE has taken place here: this is a pretty significant chain. Searching Google News for the chain [37] turns up lots of usable references (news stories about new hotels and redevelopments in major newspapers, reviews of hotels in reliable sources, etc). 42 hotels is a non-trivial number, and this is an unusual example of an Australian hotel chain which is successfully operating in Europe. The article isn't particularly spammy as written, and could be easily improved. Nick-D (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found lots of useful sources on this chain in the Australian business media, and have re-written the article using some of them (despite my usual policy of doing nothing whatsoever to be of any assistance to COI editors). @Jake Brockman, Kb.au, TH1980, and Smallbones: does this address your concerns? Regarding the non-used sources, it seems that most times a hotel in this chain starts construction, opens or or is sold it leads to stories in the business pages of the Australian media. There have also been some professional reviews of hotels in the chain. As such, there's room to further expand the article using independent high quality sources. Nick-D (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: thanks for this. I remain sceptical though. Some of the sources pre-date their renaming and are 9 and 12 years old. They also largely strike me as coverage of routine corporate business (new hotel openings, hotels being sold, etc.) which does not normally support WP:ORGDEPTH. The article in HM reads like from a press kit - lot's of quotations from management about how great this all is, no alternative perspective or editorial work. I don't have Factiva, but did a separate scan through Business Source. The results are similar: scattered routine coverage/PR. What may remotely qualify as editorial is few and far between. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jake, what's the concern over the sources being 9-12 years old? The parent company changing its name seems to have been a superficial change, and the availability of sourcing going back this far in the business press helps to establish notability (eg, that the topic has been the subject of coverage over time). I'd note that this is a fairly prominent chain in Australia - it has large hotels in all the capital cities, and I can't think of another Australian-owned hotel chain which has been successful in Europe. Nick-D (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: I have tried to plow through the press-releases, investor presentations and such for The Far East Group, TFE and Adina. There is some notability here, but I am just now sure if that's with the hotel brand Adina or would be better placed with TFE. Most of the sources come with comments such as (paraphrasing) "Toga expands Adina...". The article also mentions Toga/TFE and the group activities more than it does Adina. As such, one might think this is an article about TFE and might be better placed with Adina a redirect to TFE. I'm also not sure about claims such as "Australian-owned". They may have originated from Australia and have a focus there, but (almost philosophically speaking) how do you really establish the nationality of a brand ownership? Is this about where the trademark owner is based? How about different TM owner in different markets (such as with Travelodge)? Has someone gone ahead and checked the nationalities of all the shareholders of the company that owns the TM? This strikes me like a marketing claim (haven't seen this in any of the indepedent sources) and should be removed or at least moved from the lead section to the main body - if it can be properly sourced. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At present we don't have an article on Toga or TFE to upmerge it to, and I'm not about to write it ;) I agree with you on this no longer really being "Australian-owned" - given the parent company is now a Singapore-Australia joint venture, and is funded from all over the place. The 2009 Australian Financial Review story said it was an Australian-owned chain, but that was before the joint venture. Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is better now. Way to go. :-) Good rewrite, man.TH1980 (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of Nick-D's rewrite: now passes WP:GNG. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – In addition to some coverage in the Oz and the AFR, there's plenty of coverage about this significant chain in the hotel trade press, especially in Germany. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is now much improved. Kerry (talk) 01:41, 12 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. Make it so. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: The Next Generation Cats[edit]

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

Same form of article and reasoning as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Mew -- Alex^TW 06:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads like an advertisement, therefore violates WP:PROMO._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Star Trek novels. Like the previous book not worth a stand-alone article. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Same as Doctor Mew. Mduvekot (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete - Boldly in-universe fancrufting where no one has gone before. Carrite (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It would be illogical to keep this. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek Cats[edit]

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

Same form of article and reasoning as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Mew -- Alex^TW 06:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like an example of WP:BOMBARD. However, it fails WP:SUSTAINED._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seriously?! Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Star Trek novels. Sources show notabilty but not enough for a stand-alone page. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the same reason. Slightlymad 03:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as Doctor Mew. Mduvekot (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Catvengers[edit]

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

Same form of article and reasoning as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Mew -- Alex^TW 06:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Considered a redirect, but a Google reveals many things called Catvengers, with no indication as to which may be the most notable. Killer Moff (talk) 12:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as Doctor Mew. Mduvekot (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jenny Parks as the article is mostly just about her anyway, and anything left can be merged over. Dream Focus 20:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 14:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ashir Azeem[edit]

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

Nothing significant in his career yet. Fails WP:NACTOR. Störm (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep writer, director, producer, star of notable film Maalik and writer of a TV series Atlantic306 (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not acted in multiple films. No major role to pass WP:NACTOR. Störm (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's also a director and writer as well as an actor and he passes WP:GNG with extensive coverage in the article Atlantic306 (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 06:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity (company)[edit]

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

Never was notable, though it managed to attract aa great deal of publicity. I tried to remove some of the promotionalism, including self-serving quotes, before I realized that the article was hopeless. The Huffington Post is notoriously unreliable,as it has no editorial control; TechCrunch has both some real reviews and much PR-placement--the refs here are the latter; I'm not passing judgement about all the contents of the Financial Post, but the items here are PR; The rest are even worse. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Changing my vote based on Capitals00 observation that most of the sources are actually promtional Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Deathlibrarian Just be aware, it is not enough for there to be "some good RS" - those references must also have independent content and not extensively rely on content that originates back to the company and with depth that is more than reciting company facts such as "founded in XXXX with YYY employees and headquartered in ZZZZ". None of the references in the article meet these criteria, which are the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks HighKing, but I would disagree with the fact these are not indepedent references as per WP:RS. Firstly they are from publications sources/clearly independent of Clarity and clearly regarded as RS (ie Forbes, Wired, Techcrunch, CBS, Huffington Post, Financial Post, etc). Secondly some of the information is derived from Martell (the same as any article that interviews someone that is associated with a company would be!), but there is also extra added information that has been added by the authors of the articles. There is nothing to indicate all the content, in all these articles, was provided solely by Martell - and IMHO the articles clearly surpass superficial writing, identified in WP:CORPDEPTH. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Deathlibrarian, I've read all of the references mentioned and I disagree. I note that you have not indicated specific articles that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability and contain content that is independent. It would be helpful if you were to link to these references. Based on what you've said, I've looked at each reference and I believe they all fail the criteria. Forbes has a mixture of articles and a lot (most?) are from "Contributors" with no editorial control and as such fails WP:RS. There are no Forbes references linked but a quick search on the Forbes website turned up 8 articles, all from "contributors". The Wired article is entirely based on information provided by the founder, Martell, or by "connected" (not independent) persons such as Dan Waldschmidt (who "works" for Clarity). Fails WP:ORGIND. As pointed out by the nom, DGG, Techcrunch has a lot of "placement" articles - a quick search on Techcrunch shows 50 articles. I haven't read them all but of the 20 or so that I have read, they are all relying on company announcements and interviews and fail WP:ORGIND. The CBC reference is based on an interview with Martell with no independent content and fails WP:ORGIND. The Huff Post reference is a blog and therefore fails WP:RS but even if that wasn't the case, it is only a mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The National Post reference is entirely based on an interview with Martell and fails WP:ORGIND. Finally, the Financial Post article doesn't even mention the company and merely provides quotes from the founder - fails both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - HighKing Noted - consiering this and some of the other comments, I've changed my vote. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are not that strong for this company. I don't think it is notable enough yet so maybe in the future it can be brought back. But right now, the sources look pretty weak. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that existing sources are insufficient to demonstrate notability. But appears to be some substantial recent coverage in Forbes and TechCrunch. Article definitely needs work but search of non-cited sources suggests that subject meets WP:CORPDEPTH. -- SteinbDJ · talk · contributions 20:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are roughly 8 Forbes articles and about 50 TechCrunch articles. I've read all of the Forbes and got through about 20 or so of the Techcrunch. None of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Perhaps if you posted specific links to specific articles we could look at which of those references you believe are good? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

in particular, any Forbes article by a "contributor" is only their personal POV--and a frequent source for PR. And TechCrunch , while containing some genuine product views, is mostly a source for PR and trivial news. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as most sources are paid posts or simply promotional. Capitals00 (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BetterWorks[edit]

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

Barely-there sourcing. One decent writeup in a WSJ blog, and a bunch of TechCrunch schlock (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 221#Are news articles written by TechCrunch staff considered RS?). Fails WP:NCORP by a mile. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Bri - They may be notable, but for the wrong reasons. See Fortune, Bloomberg, a follow-up to the same story by Bloomber, and then this which looks like a second incident of the same. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bloomberg referred to it as " a moment of infamy", which seems to indicate NOTNEWS. If the matter does become notable , the first step would be to delete this article and start over in aa proper NPOV manner, not add the necessary negative material to an otherwise promotional article. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 7 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congo – A Political Tragedy[edit]

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

What started as simply trying to find a source for the poster (after an OTRS request asking for it to be uploaded) turned into trying to find any source whatsoever for this film. Not only did I not find a source for the poster, I have found nothing at all. Not even an IMDb page. And that is a pretty low bar to prove that this film even exists, or is anything beyond the independent director's pet project, let alone that it is notable. Fails WP:NFILM. Majora (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I share nominator's concerns as I was only able to find Wikipedia mirror sites and the Facebook page in my search for sources. SportingFlyer talk 06:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand your concerns, this is a new Documentary...actually it now has been accepted in the French Documentary annuaire http://www.film-documentaire.fr/4DACTION/w_fiche_film/51870_1. Maybe the Original French Title will help out a bit when "searching" for his documentary. Kadimina (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG for lack of sources, nor do any hits come up on news searches. looks like PROMO for a 2018 film. Like any film, it can have an article when sufficient reliable, secondary sources exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What Are The Odds (Game)[edit]

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

A BEFORE is difficult given the name of this product is a common term, however, the article itself is sourced only to the site's own page, a Wiki, and thetab.com. This seems to be an attempt to make an end-run around the deletion of Wayne Hoffman (Mentalist). Chetsford (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a before search brought up some hits that weren't those three sources, but none of them were good sources for Wikipedia. For the sake of argument if there are sources out there that can work to save this article, WP:TNT is the best solution. I didn't find any so delete it is. SportingFlyer talk 06:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Alap. Killiondude (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Larlapet[edit]

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

Only a WP:DICTDEF. The article borders on unintelligible to an American reader due to the undefined (and possibly misspelled) Indian musical terms ("palces", "aans"). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Writing needs work but seems to be a somewhat notable musical thingamabob in sitar music. See Alap for similar divisions. I'm finding plenty of coverage and discussion on reliable independent sources. At worst a merge. FloridaArmy (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're certain what the correct merge/redirect target is, I'm fine with that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alap. Since there's nothing cited here, nothing really to merge. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:51, 6 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriela (singer)[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable singer/musician. Created originally as a fawning, confessional, promotion (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabriela_(singer)&diff=303155619&oldid=243859174), it has not improved much since. Quis separabit? 03:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find coverage of her or her work. FloridaArmy (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the lack of coverage from authoritative sources and notability. Slightlymad 09:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can find no notable press of any sort, nor any coverage of either of the two albums. Mramoeba (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established Dreamspy (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crab War[edit]

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

Notability concerns for this iPhone/Android game. The Gamasutra ref is an "unedited press release", and the Pocket Gamer article is as a "Preferred Partner", meaning a paid placement. No particular claim of notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few new alternative sources i could find along with the 2016 Google Play Award that the game received for "Most Irresistible". Will source more notable mentions if they are found. Alexlimsiuking (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I saw another sponsored post in the WP:VG/SE, but otherwise, what's there is insufficient to meet the bar for WP:GNG. Delete. --Izno (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only one reliable source from what I can tell. Unnotable. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Izno. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 17:06, 11 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. No prejudice against recreation in the future when the time is appropriate. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tampa Bay Titans[edit]

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

The only sources are primary sources, and for a new "second-division" league it's WP:CRYSTAL to assume they will actually play in 2019. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are about teams proposed to start play in this league in 2019; the Bellevue article has some independent references but they are extremely local and appear to be straight-up PR:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete exact same concerns as nominator. SportingFlyer talk 06:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on this previous AfD, named teams were presumed to be notable and others were redirected to the league page. I have no problem if these team pages are deleted as I agree they do not currently meet WP:GNG and have no apparent notability. The creator does have a history of creating several very low level teams and bio pages for people involved with those teams. But in fairness, a redirect would save that user's contributions if indeed these teams come to fruition. On the other hand, if it is deleted, there is not really much here to be recreated if reliable sources actually start showing up. The Bellevue team coverage, while sort-of independent in coverage, is simply a local announcement coverage bordering on WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:NOTNEWS, from only one non-primary source, and is too early for WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Yosemiter (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Doogan[edit]

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

Not a notable blogger. The only independent coverage is local and semi-promotional. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. -- irn (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She has 46,000 subscribers on youtube so shes not unknown but isn't a household name, refs don't support notability. I can remember contributing to a vlogger debate like this who was subsequently deleted and now has 15 million subscribers, we can wait a while anyhow. Szzuk (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Davies (Australian politician)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL as a candidate for office, and no other claim of notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPIP Donama (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN as only notable due to the candidacy. SportingFlyer talk 06:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get articles just for being still-unelected candidates in future elections — he has to win the seat, not just run for it, to be deemed notable as a politician — but there's no claim of preexisting notability for other reasons present here at all. Obviously no prejudice against recreation on or after March 17 if he wins, but he's not entitled to keep a campaign brochure on here in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesnt meet WP:NPOL as election is yet to happen, (an optimist may say a case of WP:TOOSOON?:)), wp is not here for promotion. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more material is found to show academic or business notability, without prejudice to undeletion if he happens to win the seat of Waite. One of the profile pages I found (I tried to improve the article) suggests he has three commercialised patents, but I didn't find what they are. I found no support for general, academic or business wikinotability. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At this point of his career, he's not yet notable. He's only a candidate. Anybody can be one. Does not meet notability criteria for WP:POLITICIAN.Ira Leviton (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NPOL for now. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it doesn't pass WP:N. M A A Z T A L K 15:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Hamilton (actor)[edit]

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

A directory-like listing with no encyclopedically relevant prose. Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO. Significant RS coverage not found. Awards are not significant and / or are scene related; the category listed "GayVN Awards winner Best Actor - Foreign Release" does not qualify. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porn actor, Hasn't won any significent awards, Fails PORNBOI & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total failure of our absurd notability criteria on pornographic performers, which seem to have been written to include as many as possible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Summers[edit]

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

A directory-like listing with no encyclopedically relevant prose. Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO. Significant RS coverage not found. Awards are not significant and / or are scene related. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable porn actor, Hasn't won any significent awards, Fails PORNBOI & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no particular notability, fails PORNBIO and GNG. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bayo Olupohunda[edit]

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

I've made a reasonable attempt at finding more sources than the current ones, which are insufficient to esablish that the subject is notable: naija.ng is not independent, premiumtimesng.com is a mere mention, mediacareerng.org is a brief mention, and cnn.com is a list item. His book does not appear to have an ISBN number and shows no library holdings in worldcat. Mduvekot (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also worth an admin looking into whether this is similar to the last version that was deleted as paid editing, author might be a sock. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article is neither sock nor paid editing. The subject is a notable Nigerian journalist and author. I will try to find the ISBN number of the book and provide it in the article. But I'll abide by whatever decision is arrived at by consensus. All suggestions for improving the page for notability are also welcome. Igwatala (talk) 08:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I can't find an ISBN number for the book (at least not one recognised by google books/amazon etc), but there are sources that indicate it probably was published, eg. featured in this article, mentioned in this interview, featured in this article (and pictured), featured in this article, reviewed by this blog (unreliable), for sale here, reviewed, featured etc. I note a number of news articles that seem to be written by the subject, but not ones that are actually about him. Prince of Thieves (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above vote. D4iNa4 (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checkmate (rapper)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable musician; already deleted once. Recreated but still not notable. A) ''best-known for guesting on the [[Rascalz]]' 1998 single "[[Northern Touch]]"'' and B) ''"made a guest appearance on [[Emily Jordan]]'s eponymous album in 2004"'' DO NOT NOTABILITY CREATE. Quis separabit? 01:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having a "feat." credit on another band's song is not an automatic notability freebie in its own right — a person has to be the subject of reliable source coverage in media to qualify for a Wikipedia article, and does not get a free exemption from that just because you have the words "Rascalz, Checkmate, Kardinal and Thrust, Choclair coming down with the Northern Touch" earworming their way through your brain. While the guy did release some of his own music separately from that, I can't find any evidence that he accomplished anything in the process that would pass WP:NMUSIC — and while "checkmate rapper" gets 67 hits in ProQuest, none of them are about him for the purposes of getting him over WP:GNG — every single one of them is just a brief mention of his existence in coverage about "Northern Touch" itself. Unfortunately, that sort of "namechecking" coverage doesn't assist in establishing notability. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually find sources which are substantively covering him in the context of his own music, rather than passingly mentioning him in coverage of Rascalz' music. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snupps[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Very little coverage anywhere - nothing significant. A couple of articles (Techcrunch and Telegraph) as may be expected by the PR push of a new service. Nothing significant elsewhere amongst reliable and trustworthy publications. Article created and contributed to entirely by SPA COI. Rayman60 (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 14 references of which 6 are blogs or profiles. 2 are invalid links. Fails WP:CORP. Even though I am a new editor, I feel this is poorly written and extremely promotional. Geymarfan (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hudsonville Congregational United Church of Christ[edit]

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

This article was proposed for deletion, the stated reason being "No indication of notability for either the congregation or the building." As it happens, this article was prodded and deprodded in August 2007, so it is not eligible for the WP:PROD procedure now. The church has been around for more than 140 years and is mentioned in some books, but the existing building does not appear to be historical and I have not been able to find any substantial coverage about the church in reliable sources that would take it beyond the run of the mill under current standards, so I have placed it for review here at articles for deletion. I will be happy to reconsider if better sources (or a clearer argument for notability) can be identified. Arxiloxos (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If this were in userspace, it could be speedy deleted as a WP:NOTWEBHOST violation. There is nothing encyclopedic here. I'd nominate it for speedy deletion, but I'm pretty sure it would (improperly) be denied based on the congregation's age. I'd say you'd be hard pressed to find a community or township east of the Mississippi that didn't have a church that old. And few if any would be notable. John from Idegon (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a run-of-the-mill, ordinary church. Lepricavark (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although 1877 might be fairly old for a church founded in Michigan in the U.S., I don't see specific historic information supporting this article. Within National Register of Historic Places listings in Ottawa County, Michigan, there is just one site listed in Hudsonville, the Hudsonville Christian School, but that does not appear to be related to this church. --Doncram (talk) 23:11, 12 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 Rename to Schäfer Heinrich (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich (farmer)[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable musician. Quis separabit? 00:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Schäfer Heinrich. His song reached #5 on the German charts,[38] satisfying WP:MUSICBIO #2. He appears to be a minor celebrity/reality TV star over there[39] and the subject of a semi-documentary feature film.[40] Clarityfiend (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The German Wikipedia article (at de:Schäfer Heinrich) goes into some detail about the basis for his notability--a top 5 single followed by branded merchandise, more recordings, further attention in the media--and while my ability to review German-language sources is limited, at first blush it does look like a case for notability has been made. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Schäfer Heinrich per COMMONNAME. Sad example of notability != importance. Agathoclea (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If notability is agreed on by consensus then by all means change the article name, which in its current form, is confusing and misleading. Perhaps to Schäfer Heinrich. Quis separabit? 15:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Schäfer Heinrich is in Germany a famous and popular man, at 2018 there will come his first movie, yes it looks like a Z-Movie (http://www.filmstarts.de/kritiken/258570.html), a PC-Game (https://www.amazon.de/Sch%C3%A4fer-Heinrichs-Bauernhof-Simulator-PC/dp/B003SL0IY6), he is was in Frauentausch (Wife Exchange) at RTL 2, and so on. He appeared at many episodes from Bauer sucht Frau. I hope my work on this article was enough, too keep it. Big T1983a (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but rename to Schäfer Heinrich for sure - a Google search turns up some more coverage in reliable sources: [[41]][[42]][[43]][[44]][[45]][[46]]. Most of this is about a girlfriend, but he's considered notable enough that his personal life gets extensive coverage. You never know what's going to grab the population's imagination! TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Husna[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actress. Fails GNG. Quis separabit? 00:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be a WP:BEFORE failure. Searching "husna actress" on Google Books I come up with lots of subatantial coverage. She was a star and leading lady in many films. Also had lesser roles. But notability is clear. I auggest withdrawing. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - she received 'Nigar Award for Best Supporting Actress', easily passes WP:NACTOR. Störm (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy @Störm -- fair enough but not "a WP:BEFORE failure". I did not search "husna actress" on Google Books, but I did search on Bing and did not discern much content to indicate much notability as a thespian. Evidently, I should withdraw this good faith nomination, so I will.

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN. Quis separabit? 15:28, 6 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.