< 1 May	3 May >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 20:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Albert Watson[edit]

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

Unreferenced for seven years. A web search yields mentions of him, but nothing substantial. The article appears to have been created by someone with a COI. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are claims here that could certainly qualify him for an article if they were properly referenced as true, but nothing that's so "inherently" notable as to exempt him from having to have any reliable source coverage. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage from independent sources. Septrillion (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Hammond (circumcision activist)[edit]

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

Orphan article with a few weak references added in 2012 after a BLP-PROD. No visible demonstration of notability. Scott Davis ^Talk 23:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article wholy inadequate to either source a BLP with or prove notability. ^{Cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Circumcision is an important issue and Tim Hammond has been a major activist to shed light on its disadvantages for decades now and has written books on the subjects and is a constant presence in conferences dealing with the matter. There are media references even in 2017 where he is widely quoted as a reliable well-informed source, so he is very relevant and notable on the subject. I feel the reference links in the article we have are quite acceptable as well. werldwayd (talk) 06:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yeah, yeah, circumcision is an important issue. What does that have to do with anything? It's longstanding practice that quotes from a subject are not independent and can't be used to bolster the notability of a subject, so we're left with a handful of soggy, unreliable refs. The GNG requires that the subject receive significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, and we need quality ones for ANY BLP. None have been produced over the course of many years now for this guy. There are a lot of worthy activists in the world, but they're not entitled to Wikipedia articles. Neither is this fellow, so the article should be ... cut. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigma^msg 20:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris De La Rocha[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA, as he has only fought in 2 (not the required 3) UFC events. PF and WFC do not appear to be top-tier MMA orgs. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 22:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, article is a chart and an infobox, when it should be a biography. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Not likely to meet WP:NMMA.PRehse (talk) 08:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no prose, no sources that meet WP:GNG, and the subject fails to meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters. With no fights in two years, it's unlikely he'll ever meet WP:NMMA. If he ever does, then the article can be recreated. Papaursa (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet MMA notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NMMA. Septrillion (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Teacher Accreditation[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Significant independent coverage not found. Deprodded by PA11 last year. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Fails WP:ORG. Septrillion (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Romain[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, commercial websites, industry PR materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. The awards listed are all scene related. Mainstream appearances are minor. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Romain is one of the most famous porn actresses of Eastern Europe. Fonts in text and your minor mainstream appearances satisfy WP:BASIC. Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She passes the general notability guidelines. In addition to the sources in the article, google news reveals the following articles by Romania TV [1][2][3]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the sources (romaniatv.net) and I don't believe they are suitable. This is not WP:SIGCOV needed to build an NPOV biography of a BLP. The coverage is shallow - she is married; they live on a farm; etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets of the WP:PORNBIO and also WP:GNG. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 17:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Subtropical-man: how does the subject meet PORNBIO? Please help me understand. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, Ninfa Award - no scene award - per WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 15:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Nifta award is scene related: "Most Original Sex Sequence (with Melissa Lauren, Belladonna, Jenna Haze, Gianna Michaels, Rocco Siffredi & Jean Val Jean)". This does not meet PORNBIO; I believe you are mistaken. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks the coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to failing WP:GNG (sourcing is to brief tabloid clickbait features with photos, some are little more than captions,) she fails PORNBIO as per K.e.coffman, above. And PORNBIO sets a very low bar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 21:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:PORNBIO from any angle imaginable. Went carefully through the "keep" votes but they're based on nothing of substance. A few are using false evidence, too. -The Gnome (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete not the substantive sourcing a BLP deserves. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mehnad Mahmoud Shablak[edit]

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:PERP. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The perpetrator was considered notable by the creator because the case had received a long duration of coverage (the Globe and Mail reported his arrest in Feb 2006, CBC reported the trial in Jan 2007, and resurfaced again in follow-up story by CBC in Mar 2018). In addition to this long duration of coverage, the crime highlighted potential flaws in the Canadian Criminal Code relating to the rights of victims to discuss events in public where a publication ban has been ordered. The case is no less notable than that of Rehtaeh Parsons which has a article not marked for deletion. Madeupname3 (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with deletion; does not meet WP:GNG or WP:PERP. Mr Xaero (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move/rename to something like 2006 Newfoundland child pornography ring, the name used in nationwide headlines about the Newman and Shabak cases broken up by Newfoundland's "Operation Rescue," (nice work on the part of Newfoundland police and child protective authorities!) But the WP:SIGCOV comes in 2018, most notably with this INDEPTH, CBC report If only you knew her name; Survivors of child exploitation break their silence ... at least as far as the law will allow, which carries this past WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY, I just added that INDEPTH CBC story to the article, 4 2018 SIGCOV CBC stories, plus one video neither Nom nor iVoter above appears to have seen this recent INDEPTH coverage. Also did a little rewrite, source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you've re-written it, I agree it should be kept, but it should probably be re-named to about the sex abuse case. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable, we do need a new title. And I am open to suggestions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)uss[reply]

Delete. The crime is not notable - some national coverage in 2006-8, then nothing. The coverage circa 2018 is about the law preventing the publication of identities of sexual abuse victims who want to go public - which is a separate issue from the crime. Some of the victims campaigning/coming forward are indeed from the "big bite pizza" case and have been telling their story - however this is getting attention not because of the crime itself.Icewhiz (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 21:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per EM gregory. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I be bold and rename it, and change the AFD links to suit? The article currently doesn't belong under his name, and I don't see why it should remain under the current name for the time being. thx. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@L3X1: " there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD discussion".WP:AFD. I think that in this case this is an excellent idea.@Power~enwiki, Mr Xaero, Madeupname3, Icewhiz, and BabbaQ:.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done E.M.Gregory Sorry I didn't get your ping until recently. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note renaming to 2006 Newfoundland Child Pornography Ring.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Gregorys improvements. Good work. Also in favour of renaming. Is beyond WP:WP:NCRIMEBabbaQ (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Per Kudpung. Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MIMI ELSA[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC - The references in the article look like they are mostly blog posts, interviews, etc. Article says one of her songs made the charts in Ghana, but the sources don't verify this... SeraphWiki (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The search tools produce one blog hit that doesn't come close to WP:RS. The article's references are all from non-reliable blogs. (There's no shortage of blogs for the West African music scene!!) It's quite annoying to run down a series of non-reliable sources used a sources. Extra strength deletion for that sort of obfuscation, although this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON—she's attractive, and if she can sing, she may have a future. Tapered (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So I am just going to say this. To say that the references to the entire article is bogus because they are mostly blogs is inappropriate. From where I am standing, most articles from Ghana, are majorly referenced by these same blogs that are being considered non-reliable. Does that mean all of those articles aren't notable and should be deleted? These blogs are the source of information in our "Music Scene". I agree that the article could be expanded, and more referencing could be added. But to delete an entire page after it has been reviewed for two months and accepted? Iamnvna (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator and primary curator of the article, I commend you for not adding 'delete' or 'keep.' To say that industry blogs that have no substantial reputation are not WP:RS is entirely appropriate. Carlos Gardel sang that "twenty years is nothing." That an article has existed for two months is no argument at all. Tapered (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After an excursion in linking, starting with Ghana, then to Music of Ghana, and onward, I can answer your statement better. The answer is, "Yes, there are quite a few articles on articles relating to Ghana and its popular culture that rely on dubious references, largely blogs." I may nominate one for deletion. Look below the relisting for a related comment. Tapered (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is not based on the fact that the article has existed for two months. In fact It barely lasted a day after the draft was accepted and moved to the article space.What I was concerned of is why a draft would be reviewed for two months and immediately it is approved, be up for deleting. Iamnvna (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, read the above nomination and my assessment of the article's references. That's why this discussion is happening, and why IMLTHO (with appropriate evidentiary arguments) this article warrants deletion. Tapered (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or return to Draft for better sourcing. Two claims that meet WP:NMUSIC are a the verified by third party Artist of he Year award and that her song charted in Ghana. We have a bias toward US musicians here and US sources and need to be careful to apply criteria fairly. Sure the sourcing could be improved, but let's try to improve before deleting. The creator is a new user, a fan, not the artist, and put together a decent page. A much better effort than most of the self serving promotional crap we deal with every day. Legacypac (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page—Vodafone Ghana Music Awards—has the real Ghanaian musical awards. None of the references that purport to show a song charting in Ghana actually mention charting, nor are they WP:RS. (A toned down statement) I'm not biased @ Wikipedia for any music—just toward the guidelines for inclusion/exclusion. Succinctly—they work. The call to "improve" the sourcing ignores the fact that the search tools produced zilch. Tapered (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 21:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article's references don't meet WP:RS. The reference tools produced no promising sources. If anyone knows of any reliable sources, please cite them. All of the recent winners of the Vodafone Ghana Music Awards have Wikipedia articles, so prominent Ghanaian artists are already represented. Wikipedia is not a venue for fandom. Tapered (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Vodafone Ghana Music Awards is the country's major awards festival. Doesn't mean that's the only Award show in Ghana or its the only viable Award Show notable of inclusion in an Encyclopedia. You are also talking chart, there are no charts in Ghana. The first reference you saw to that line is the best you'd get close to a chart in Ghana. Iamnvna (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me also just say this before you comeback with that, Yes I know what we are looking at to decide on the article are the Wikipedia Policies regarding such matters and not what a country has or doesn't have.Iamnvna (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm looking at is the interface between WP:RS andWP:NM. The references are not reliable sources. The award cited in the article certainly has no Wikipedia article and a Google search produces no result. So it doesn't meet musical notability standards. And doubling down by creating Cina Soul for a comparable artist wasn't a good idea. Tapered (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac's comments just got through to me. It may be frustrating to you as a WP:NEWBIE, but the guidelines have (for the most part) evolved to impose some order and structure on the anarchy that is Wikipedia. And to act as a filter on editors who want to spin their viewpoints as revealed truth. That said, at this point, according to my understanding, your best strategy would be to familiarize yourself with the reliable sources guidelines and attempt to find some for the Ghanaian musical scene. This, instead of continuing to defend the article's current references. Regards Tapered (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my obtuseness. Your point about the review-to-AfD time is well taken. And User:Legacypac is the reviewer who signed off on your article! Further, it seems that User:SeraphWiki is rebuking Legacypac for approval of the article—indirectly. Well, I'm rebuking Seraphwiki for not mentioning the recent article creation approval in the AfD nomination, and Legacypac for not stating his role in article approval in the discussion. I urge any admin reading this to defer judgment until they've both written a bit more about their role in this discussion. I think that Seraphwiki's concern about the quality of sources is well taken, but still his initial statement ought to have mentioned the recent acceptance of the article. Tapered (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My approval of the page at AfD is visable on the article talkpage and in the edit logs. The time between submission amd approval or rejection is 100% irrelevant as we review most pages within a couple days of submission. I clearly stated why I approved the page. Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- When I'm looking at an AfD, I don't look much at the article's history. Or the creator's Talk page. I look at the references, and the results from the search tools. So I had no idea that the person who approved the article was a commenter—you. Anyone reading your comment ought to have been given that info in a spirit of full disclosure. Tapered (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

looking at who contributed to the page and what is posted on talk are a reasonable part of reviewing a page at AfD. Legacypac (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iamnvna appears to be voting Keep here as well. If she has "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network." which is implied by the idea she "charted" she passes NMUSIC as well Legacypac (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not impressed by "implied" charting or rotations. I'm impressed by demonstrated ones. I'm also not impressed by the assertion that (for some reason) articles about Ghanian subjects can be sourced by blogs because ... well, because of why, exactly? Ghana is an English-speaking country with English-language media, with seven print publications that have Wikipedia articles. If no one's bothered to properly source the subject, then the article can be deleted until such time as someone cares to do it. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A summary of events to date. User:Legacypac—for whatever reason—approved acceptance of an article that almost certainly shouldn't have been accepted. User:SeraphWiki, instead of confronting Legacypac directly—with perhaps a suggestion to backtrack and remove the article for further work—escalated to AfD, without informing potential reviewers that the article had been officially accepted for inclusion less than 24 hours previously. In effect, using negative reviewers as cats paws or stalking horses against Legacypac for the inclusion. Legacypac then waded into the discussion without informing potential reviewers of his involvement in acceptance of the article—and has the unmitigated chutzpah to say that its reviewers' responsibility to investigate the history of the article to do a review, which is especially egregious for this article and its multiple non-reliable sources to be sifted. Reviewers' essential task @ AfD is to evaluate the references and the results from the search tools to evaluate an article's right to exist. Anything else is gravy, above and beyond the call of duty. (And as a former small scale contractor, I just want to say that I'm shocked, simply shocked, that a real estate developer would ever try to evade responsibility for anything!)

In the middle of this mishegas is WP:NEWBIE, User:Iamnvna, shell shocked that her recently approved article is now in AfD. In spite of a worthy effort, it still doesn't warrant inclusion. I hope she hangs around to do good work. Tapered (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tapered your assessment, blame game and personalization of this is inappropriate. I've never seen you before and I'm one of the most active AfC reviewers. This article makes several assertions that clearly meet WP:NMUSIc. Sure the sourcing could be improved, but that is normal editing. Legacypac (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning an article without reliable sourcing is not normal editing. Or perhaps it's normal editing for articles that wind up in AfD. I notice that you complain about my personalization—ie having the nerve to criticize editors for bad behavior—but don't do a point by point rebuttal of my assertions, whereas my criticism—however personal—criticizes yourself and User:SeraphWiki for less than upfront behavior. I was contributing to this without full disclosure on either of your parts. I call that "sneaky," and not really good faith editing. If I made obnoxious remarks about real estate developers, so ban me for 48 hours. Tapered (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have an opinion on the notability and am not particularly interested in going through the sources but as a reviewer and also a patroller I have learnt that notability and opinion on the quality of the sources is a subjective thing. The survival rate for Afc accepted articles is far from 100% and this is because they are accepted by 1 person and not everyone has the same opinion on what passes notability. One thing I will say is that Legacypac is a very thorough and hard working reviewer and has declined way more articles then they have accepted and has helped a very large number of editors to submit high quality articles to the encyclopedia. So thinly veiled ad hominem comments are IMHO out of place here. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And just to add the reviewing process states that we accept an article if it is "likely" to survive a deletion discussion. Without the reviewer process Wikipedia would be flooded with unacceptable articles. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"...notability and opinion on the quality of the sources is a subjective thing," would seem to make WP:RS and WP:NM way more amorphous and fuzzy than I read them. There are gradations of judgment—I recently commented on an article where ALL of the sources were seemingly reliable but very local, and reserved judgment. The article remained, and I thought that was the correct outcome. I'm vehement about this AfD because the sources really do contravene the reliable sources guidelines. My criticism of the two editors is harsh but not an appeal to emotion, and so not ad hominem. If Legacypac does good work, more power to him, but he ought to have declared his interest in the article up front. His assertion that AfD reviewers need to investigate the history and background of each article is strictly self-defense—and incorrect. That's way too time consuming for most reviews of AfD nominations. If the two editors had been more candid about their actions, this conversation wouldn't be happening, though it's good to learn about Afc. Tapered (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested to know that even if your stats are very good you do not have a 100% rate in afd discussions. [4]. I don't think it is obligatory to declare anything or to check who did what on the article so I really think that this is a sterile argument. If you believe the article should be deleted then make policy-based arguments as you have done so but unless there is a COI or sockpuppet problem or votestacking I don't understand why it is necessary to dissect the other editors' comments and look for ulterior motives and hidden agendas. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Return to draft. I was actually on the verge of closing this based on the admissible comments (discounting those that are personal attacks). However, after reviewing the articles and its souces - which a closer is not forced to do - I must admit that the sources do appear to be blogs. Blogs are generally only accepted when they are audited content of established, reliable press, and IMO these blogs do not meet that description. The subject is however not without a strong presumption of notability which must nevertheless be established through WP:RS. In view of this therefore, and with all due respect for the nominator and the original AfC revierer, I believe this article should be given a chance and at least allowed its 6 months in purgatory for more sources to accumulate. The closer has the discretion to either do that or close as 'no consensus', or which I would regret, as 'delete'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The cited sources are digital marketing agencies dedicated to promoting musical artists (ProfileAbility, TalkMediaGhana), blogs (imullar, Loud Sound GH, Motion Hype Gh, Big Times Gh) and download sites (Ghana Music), or otherwise show no evidence of editorial oversight or a reputation for accuracy and fact checking (Unorthodox Reviews [written by the creator of the article], Ghlinks.com, Kuulpeeps, Kwame Sarfo, PlaylistGh.com). Searches of the usual Google types, half a dozen mainstream Ghanian news sites, De Gruyter, EBSCO, Gale, HighBeam, JSTOR, Project MUSE, ProQuest, and Questia returned zero reliable sources. With no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, does not meet any notability guideline. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I would be happy to userfy to an established editor in good standing who wishes to repurpose the page J04n(talk page) 19:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ramanath payyade college of hotel management[edit]

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

The subject fails general notability criteria. An online search provides no mention in reliable sources.

Possibly a case of paid editing (creator is "Marketing Wire"). —usernamekiran(talk) 05:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 06:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 06:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The parent organization Bunts Sangha appears to be notable. This, one of many, eduxations institutions it established has not received subatantial coverage. I would rework to fix but unfortunately dping so contravenes deletion discussion rules. FloridaArmy (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy: - what do you mean reworking it would contravene the deletion discussion rules? What's preventing you from improving the article? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I mean I am not allowed to change the article subject during a deletion discussion. This would entail moving the article. I suppose perhaps it could be reworked without moving it but I'm not sure if someone would object. And it wpuld be weird to have an article about the parent organization at a title for one of its subordinate institutions. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I hadn't realised you meant to move the article - yes I see your point. Nosebagbear (talk)

I fixed the name for the college in the header and infobox in the meantime. This can be renamed to such after AFD concludes if it still survives. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Firstly, "a socio-cultural organization of Bunt Community of Mumbai and endeavors to promote Socio-economic, cultural and educational aspects of its members"...well I wouldn't say the intro paragraph is an example of crystal clear clarity. There's currently (well there always is) a dispute over schools that don't meet notability grounds, however I can't imagine this college, as-is, would survive in any case. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Nosebagbear and FloridaArmy: idk how the education system in other countries work, but here it is a business, and a dirty one. The private colleges take money in 3-4 forms from the students. First is "unofficial donation" (off the records/black momey), for admission; the second is on record donation; the third is annual fees, which is different for merit list students, and students from management quota. Thats why such promotional articles about Indian educational institutions offend me. This article seems to be promotional/advertisement for that business installation. I also doubt the parent organisation Bunts Sangha is notable enough. In any case, notability is not inherited. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and create Bunts Sangha as it owns a number of colleges [5] that don't seem to be notable on their own but as listed in the organization it would be informative. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose as an article on the parent chain, Bunts Sangha DGG ( talk ) 07:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wouldn't be reticent about voting merge if Bunts Sangha existed as an article, but just dropping this in, even with some basic trimming, wouldn't do it. The new article would be at risk of deletion as well which is both poor and cruel. It either needs some pre-filling or a keen, praiseworthy, person saying they'll deal with it when it shifts. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: FloridaArmy, you can create Bunts Sangha to act as a merge target. If you need to copy text over, just remember to add attribution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 21:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some people say it fails GNG others say it passes. Many words were typed but consensus there was none. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FA Cup semi-finals[edit]

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

Semi Finals aren't notable. There is no trophy for reaching this stage of a cup. The article lacks goalscorers making it have less info than the specific season articles. No other Cups have a page for semifinals making this yet another example of pro English football bias. Dougal18 (talk) 07:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't see any evidence that the semi-final stage of the competition (as an overall concept) is notable enough for a stand-alone article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - There are some unique features of FA Cup semi-finals, particularly with respect to venues and participation by lower or non-league clubs, which this list article explores. I say "weak keep" because it just about barely walks the line of passing WP:GNG in terms of sourcing. The claim of "pro English football bias" above is a ridiculous piece of bad faith by Dougal18 against the many editors who have contributed to the article over the years, by the way. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of "pro English football bias" is simply a statement of the blindingly obvious when it comes to the way that articles are treated at AfD. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lower/non league teams making the semis (or even the final) isn't unique to the FA Cup and neither is where the semis are held. GNG doesn't entitle a subject to a article - it only presumes notablity. By that logic we can have a article with all the First Round matches on it assuming it passes GNG.--Dougal18 (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is in fact the correct logic. SportingFlyer talk 22:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of these individual matches meet GNG, but that could be said for any FA Cup match. For me, the question is does the overall concept of "the semi-finals of the FA Cup" meet GNG, and for me the answer is no. Your comment above suggests that you would endorse an article entitled First round of the FA Cup, which listed every single first round match that has ever taken place (of which at a conservative estimate there would be more than 5,000), and frankly that would be utter insanity -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the First Round of the FA Cup passes GNG, it would be eligible for an article. It does not, nor do the individual matches that constitute it, as I would believe they would be WP:ROUTINE. I also don't think the individual matches for a semifinal pass GNG. The reason why this article does as a whole is because the topic as a whole passes WP:GNG, even though it's currently a poorly sourced article. Sources like [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] The historical focus on these games as a whole clearly passes WP:GNG, especially considering there's history with neutral venues and changes in the way the semifinals have been conducted over time. SportingFlyer talk 04:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I show further below, and with all due respect, SportingFlyer, you completely misunderstand the notion of independent notability. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, in my opinion. R96Skinner (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of the delete votes above me have cited any policy apart from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Passes WP:GNG and the statistics presented are well documented, so it's not just a blob of numbers. SportingFlyer talk 01:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would call this a good reference article, it lacks the citations for GNG but that can easily be fixed, for those that say these games aren't notable need to come up with another argument, I am with SportingFlyer and point to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Govvy (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly these individual games are notable, I doubt anyone would dispute that, but is the overarching concept of "the semi-finals of the FA Cup" notable, meriting combining them all into one overall article? Personally I think not -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, certainly does not pass WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 08:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I decided to change my mind on this article. Firstly anyone that says the topic of this article fails GNG need to stop it, of course the topic is going to pass GNG, there will be multiple sources you can collect up and add to the article. You could easily have 100 citations here. I believe this is comes under unnecessary content forking, you already have competition pages for each year and that will cover the semi finals along with club season pages which are in those semi finals. Establishing the criteria for any list needs to cover it's importance to the subject and this list on it's own I believe fails WP:LISTN. Govvy (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you think it's an unnecessary fork. It's certainly not a superfluous fork. There's plenty of information on this page, including the history of the formats, the neutral venues used, or the statistics of how often clubs have reached this stage, which would not be found in the club season pages or the yearly competition pages. Users may want an overview of all semi-finals, where they've been played, or have some other reason for wanting to view the topic as a whole. Furthermore, as you've noted, it passes WP:GNG, and it does so as a group, due to the number of articles or record sites which talk about the stage of the competition as a whole - not because the individual games do. SportingFlyer talk 04:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I have no idea what I am doing or saying about the article, I am drawing between keeping and deleting yet again, I actually think I am wasting my time trying sometimes, my main problem is the person that nominated this article for deletion, Dougal18 has been disruptive multiple times in the past and I feel this nomination is suspicious. I'd be happier if this whole AfD was withdrawn and put forward with a different person. I do see the usefulness of the material, I just feel upset that people are saying no evidence of notability trying to delete an article which a lot of people have put effort into creating, when clearly there is a huge amount of notability to the subject matter because millions of people watch these semi-finals on TV. Govvy (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been disruptive since my indefinite (and third) ban was lifted after 3 hours 32 minutes back in January after promising to be a good boy. I've created 2 pages since then and nominated a page for deletion. The page was deleted without any questioning of my past disruption. I have better things to do than maliciously AfD an article and hope people reach a consensus for deletion. The effort people put into the article has no bearing on whether it should be deleted or not. BTW, how many viewers did the 1888 semifinals get?--Dougal18 (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not determined by the number of television viewers, but rather by the GNG: significant coverage, reliable sources, independent of the subject, of which a television show is not. This AfD frustrates me for a similar reason as you've noted: it's put forward for not meeting GNG along with an other stuff doesn't exist argument and a clear I don't like it/bias argument. No indication of a before search by the author or any of the delete votes. The reason why this is notable (along with the third/fourth place article) and not say the quarterfinals or the semifinals of a cup in another division is because they've been covered extensively as semifinals (I've listed sources above), in part because of the history of the competition, in part because neutral grounds were used showing it's an important stage in the competition: you don't get to host a home game anymore (covered in sources) [16]. It baffles me why this has legs. SportingFlyer talk 04:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as a perfectly reasonable content fork. This article/list contains nothing but verifiable information that, in principle, could be included in FA Cup if it wasn't for the fact that it would be ridiculous bloat on an article owing to the lengthy history of the competition. I also take particular issue with a large part of the nomination rationale; providing an increased level of detail on one country's cup competition shouldn't be considered a reason to delete that one, so much as a reason to enhance the coverage of others if there are editors that are willing to put in the time. Similarly, a criticism of the fact that this article lacks goalscorer information compared to the more detailed articles is surely an argument either for the usefulness of this type of page as a navigation tool, or an argument for increased information on this page - not one for deletion. ~ mazca ^talk 21:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 21:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The FA Cup article doesn't have a list of finals let alone the semis. Keeping the article in the hope other editors enhance others is no reason to keep whatsoever. By your arguments an article listing all the games of a certain round in any cup would be acceptable. The page provides less info than the specific season articles and should be deleted. If it gives the same amount of info or greater, then deletion should still take place as it just rehashes info from elsewhere in an unnecessary article.Dougal18 (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the amount of RS that discuss this as distinct topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every stage of a cup competition is "notable" but only in the strict sense of being widely discussed and reported in the media when it happens. Some great games even get their own special, privileged place in history. But "semi finals" as an independently notable notion?! Someone's idea of a joke perhaps. Alternatively, someone confuses talk about the weather being cloudy over the channel during the Allies' landing in France in WWII as proof of "cloudy weather" being a notable subject! -The Gnome (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this is yet another WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote. There's coverage even when it doesn't happen, it's a notable event for many clubs as shown above and the neutral site lends itself to notability and coverage as well. [17] SportingFlyer talk 02:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I'm a long-time football fan and watch British football quite closely. :-) So, any argument about me "not liking" any stage of Cup competitions, such as F.A Cup semi-finals (and Wikipedia articles about 'em), is a non-starter. Can't raise a deader argument than that.

Let me amplify again the substance of my input: I never stated that semi-final games are not important or notable, or that they're not widely reported, etc. The point is that there is no separate and independent notability of semi finals as a category that would merit an article on them! See, there's a lot of confusion about independent notability going round in Wikipedia. For instance, people read a bunch of front-page newspaper articles about robberies, where the robber reaches into his back pocket to draw out a weapon, and they start thinking, "Hey! Back pockets are notable!" No, they're not. -The Gnome (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree with you. From fluff articles like [18] to feature articles in international papers like [19] to people complaining about the fact they're held at Wembley like [20] to the fact there was a third-fourth place game for a few years (which has its own article), there's no reason why the semi-finals aren't independently notable on their own. This isn't an article about the FA Cup where we say, "let's have an article about semifinals!" Who played in them and where they played isn't "bloat" for a moment, considering this is the most important domestic knockout cup in the world. SportingFlyer talk 21:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone above justified a "keep" opinion on the grounds that semi-finals get exposure when smaller clubs defeat bigger ones. I'd claim that so-called "giant killings" occur more often in earlier rounds of the F.A. Cup competition historically than in later ones, such as the final or the semi-finals. So, on the basis of that viewpoint and yours, what about a Wikipedia article about the F.A. Cup 6th Round Stage? Or even the 5th Round? Colchester became front page news in England when they knocked out Leeds in the 5th round in 1971. People still talk about it. But the notoriety (and the notability) concerns that game and the games per se and the Cup competition as such; not some "semi final" category. The competition does not have a "play off" period, like some sports leagues have, in which case we would have a separate article. -The Gnome (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a straw man, unfortunately. The semifinals are notable because of sources that talk about the semifinals as a distinct category, whether it be where they should be held to stattos keeping records [21]. My viewpoint does not extend to the quarterfinal rounds or below since they are not notable as a category, though I did make the point earlier if those rounds were somehow notable through the sources for whatever reason, I would vote to keep them. Notable underdog runs to the quarterfinals may be a notable category for another list. SportingFlyer talk 06:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, we disagree - but what exactly was the argument I falsely claimed was yours and then argued against it? Claiming the other side engages in straw man argumentation is serious. -The Gnome (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm with the Gnome, and frankly, the notion that there are "unique" aspects about semi-finals is complete nonsense. The way to handle "ridiculous bloat" isn't to create kneejerk content forks. It's to cut the bloat. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a spin-off article of FA Cup, and as noted, there is more than enough WP:MILL coverage to meet the letter of GNG. I think this needs to be handled by "common sense", rather than by weighing rules that give conflicting results. Should the "List of FA Cup semi-finals" table be on Wikipedia in any form? If so, this article has to exist. If not, the remaining content here should probably be merged to an article on the structure of the FA Cup in general. I'm not entirely sure what "5th round" means here, and it's not entirely clear where that would be explained beyond the per-year articles. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per WP:GNG; should be renamed List of FA Cup semi-finals in my view, however. Nomination appears to be more WP:TRIGGERED more than anything.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tiedemann Park[edit]

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

NN city park. Searching finds no independent coverage. Nothing remotely significant. WP:MILL. MB 13:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant park and nature center in Charleston. Merging to the article on the city would give it undue weight so best kept separate. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Abote2 (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming "significance" without showing required coverage is not a policy-based rational to keep. MB 18:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The park has an interesting past, especially its use as one of the first free kindergartens offered in Charleston.--ProfReader (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches turned up very little about this park, which is weird if it is "significant". Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. The Charleston Parks Conservancy might be notable, and this could be part of an article about that organization, but currently there is no article about it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article has been updated and new references added since nomination
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the sources used in the article are all historical. I haven't been able to find many independent sources on it online, but they do exist, and I've looked but can't find the notability guidelines for parks. I don't have even a weak vote either direction, but I've spent some time looking, so figured I may as well note that. SportingFlyer talk 01:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ROTM playground, pretty much exist everywhere in the world. Here's a major hospital that plays an important role in the community may not be considered notable and is subject to deletion. A playground??? Acnetj (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could someone assess the new sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 21:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about the new sources. Several are primary which verify some facts like it exists, has a playground, and it got a new fence in 2014. The rest are offline news articles which I see as routine coverage in a local newspaper that do not contribute to notability. As each of these articles (six local news articles spanning 75 years) are each used as refs for a single sentence covering more mundane things (the park opened in 1939, $6k spend on improvements in 1993, there were neighbor complaints about nighttime use, etc.) No in-depth coverage, just another WP:MILL city park. MB 22:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I gave a try at sourcing this one, lots of parks and many suffragettes can be sourced. I failed to find useful sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Super-Max[edit]

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

I am nominating this page for deletion because its language indicates it is a self prompting article by the organization themselves. The user who created the page first created his username with the exact name of organization. It is also have lack of references. सुमित सिंह (talk) 07:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion page was created without the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @सुमित सिंह: For future nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 20:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promotion which fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Septrillion (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion has not been advanced in the nomination, and no delete !votes are present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid deletion rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Pritzker Estate[edit]

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

This is a private home and, unfortunately, this article is creating unwanted attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caitwalked (talk • contribs) 20:21, March 28, 2018 (UTC)

Comment This discussion page was created without the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Nominating account has zero other edits. I have fixed the nomination, but I will note the the listed justification is not a valid reason to delete the article. --Finngall ^talk 20:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you build a house this lavish and this big, the press does take notice. And because the press has taken notice, the article will be KEPT at Wikipedia. As the Wall Street Journal noted in an discussion of this "49,300-square-foot House that) boasts amenities like a bowling alley, hairdressing area and gym," and other, similar very, very large mansions entitled Living Very Large, "One obvious drawback of building big: unwanted attention. 'nuff said.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination advances no rationale for deletion and the coverage demonstrates WP:NOTABILITY beyond any reasonable doubt. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly large, prominent and significant enough for notability. The nominator's reasoning has no basis in any policy or guideline for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No policy reason given for deletion. Septrillion (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Handley[edit]

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

I am the subject of this Wikipedia entry and both my family and I have been distressed by the vandalism recently committed, on this entry. The vandalism was abusive toward myself, my wife and our three children and had the potential to cause damage to my professional reputation.

Therefore, I respectfully request that my Wikipedia entry be deleted as soon as possible, in order to prevent a reoccurrence of such harmful behavior.

Thank you,

Craig Handley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craiggarethhandley (talk • contribs) 23:31, March 29, 2018 (UTC)

Comment Fixing the nomination--the AfD tag was applied by an IP user whose intent looks similar to the user above, but the remaining steps were not followed. --Finngall ^talk 20:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the level of his work is way below the level to be clearly notable. I see no reason to have this article, especially against the subjects own wishes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Qualifies for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and nothing is gained by preserving. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: On the one hand, I don't give a rat's ass as to whether a Wikipedia article can damage someone's professional reputation: no doubt the things said in Roman Polanski's, Harvey Weinstein's, Brett Ratner's and Kevin Spacey's articles aren't doing them any favors. On the other, if this came up for AfD on its own merits, it'd probably be deleted. No reason why not. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kyung-tae (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NHOCKEY. -The Gnome (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails NHOCKEY, doesn't meet the GNG either. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NHOCKEY. Septrillion (talk) 03:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kyu-hun[edit]

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NHOCKEY. -The Gnome (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails NHOCKEY, doesn't meet the GNG either. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NHOCKEY. Septrillion (talk) 03:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jung-moo[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a shovel shot for failing WP:NHOCKEY. Played one year in ALIH, wants to be in Wikipedia for ever. -The Gnome (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails NHOCKEY, doesn't meet the GNG either. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NHOCKEY. Septrillion (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Hong-il (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NHOCKEY. -The Gnome (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails NHOCKEY, doesn't meet the GNG either. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NHOCKEY. Septrillion (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Han-sung[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete for barely failing WP:NHOCKEY. Played in ECHL, which is two tiers below NHL. Possibly may just make it here in the future. -The Gnome (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Err, he doesn't just barely fail NHOCKEY, he fails it going away. A forgettable half-season in the mid-minors wouldn't cut it in any sport and doesn't in hockey either. And at age 36, I kinda doubt he's going to make the NHL any time soon, or at all. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ageism alert! :-) The Gnome (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He retired following the 2012 season when he failed to make the national team.18abruce (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NHOCKEY. Septrillion (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite the nom having been withdrawn, there are significant concerns voiced by the "delete" !votes, so I am closing this as "no consensus", with no prejudice to re-nominating in a month or so if improvements are not forthcoming. Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SS Marschiert in Feindesland[edit]

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

~~Nonnotable Nazi song. Stop Nazi propaganda in Wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn. The rewritten article addresses both my objections: it does demonstrate both minimal notability and its non-acceptability. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Expanded nomination rationale; I thought it was self-obvious, but obviously not, per discussion below)
- The article cites no sources. I did some googling, but did not find sufficient encyclopedic discussion.
- The article contents is the song itself and the summary the song + one minor remark that its content varied. The song is Nazi propaganda. Its summary is summarized Nazi propaganda. Therefore the whole article is nothing but uncritical retelling of Nazi propaganda masquerading as encyclopedia.

How this can be unclear, beats shit out of me. You may try and refute my argument (and even convince me that my judgement is wrog), but you cannot tell me that I am an idiot beating dead horse. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's no Nazi propaganda in an article about a marching song. Whether this topic is significant enough for a Wikipedia article is under discussion, but please don't mischaracterise the debate. Wikipedia is not required to sanitise its content because some people may be offended by it. Just think, if this was a British or American marching song (not that they're so prevalent in English-speaking countries), would there be an article on it? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the article content is nothing but propaganda of jolly and valiant Waffen-SS and nothing more. And sure SS and the rest of Waffen fought "Red plague" in Poland and did not rape and pillage and destroy. The only non-propaganda content is (unreferenced) "The lyrics changed as the war went on". Staszek Lem (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly can't distinguish between an article saying what the song said and what the article itself is claiming! This is not propaganda. Does the article say the Waffen-SS were "jolly and valiant"? No, it does not. Does the article glorify them or Nazism? No, it does not. It merely describes a song they sang, just as other articles describe the uniforms they wore or the ranks they held. Why? Because those are facts, not propaganda, and this is an encyclopaedia that contains facts to improve the knowledge of its readers. Don't make ridiculous claims. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close - due to illegitimate reasoning per WP:DEL-REASON. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FUI 'nn' means "nonnotable. Quite legitimate, I say. Also see DELREASON item 14 "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". Or you think that Nazi propaganda (this is article's 100% content) is suitable for Wikipedia? Staszek Lem (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't push it. I will concede that you and I have a disagreement about WP:DEL-REASON #14. But in your nomination you simply said that the song is non-notable, and the nomination and your further comments contain no actual reasoning except "propaganda" which has been debunked by others in this discussion. The burden of proof is on you to prove your own judgement of non-notability. See if you can do this without sarcastic accusations on what other people care about. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry colleague, you got it upside down. I do not have to prove non-notability; the article writers do. The only thing here you may accuse me is of lacking due diligence. Well, I did some googling. The song is mentioned here and there, but no encyclopedic discussion. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in order to get a few things straight. Nazi propaganda is not acceptable in Wikipedia because propaganda of any type is unacceptable in Wikipedia. The Signpost article by contributor K.e.coffman about the perceived Nazi slant of some Wikipedia articles is a fine piece of work (you might want to bookmark it) but it's an editorial, an opinion, a personal testimony; not a rule. It is superseded by the very strict rule about forbidding propaganda of any kind here!

For instance, we have articles about "Adolph Hitler" and "Heinrich Himmler" and "Reinhard Heydrich" and other such personalities on Wikipedia. We also have articles about Nazi-glorifying media, e.g. Triumph of the Will. Why? Oh, because they are notable, as simple as that. Therefore, the horse about "stopping Nazi propaganda" is dead on the starting gate. Well intentioned - but irrelevant. Among the reasons listed in WP:DEL-REASON, only notability is valid here. I'd have opted for a "Speedy Close" of this nomination if lack of notability were not invoked. -The Gnome (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we have article about Hitler. But his article is not 100% Nazi propaganda. Whereas the discussed one does. We have the article about Nazi propaganda, just as we have an article about pornography. Bu we do not article which is exclusively porggoraphy or exclusively Nazi propaganda. Also you are contradicting yourself. First you say that any propahanda is inadmissible. And in next line you say that the horse is dead. OK. Let's get away from ad Hitlerum. Suppose you have an article 100% sourced from, say, Great Soviet Encyclopedia. How you delete it basing on NOTABILITY (or WP:RS) alone? The GSL is a reliable source for one things (places, science, ets.) and completely Communist POV for political things. The only difference is the possible amount of Communist propaganda. Sorry the horse is not dead. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting even more way from Hitler. We a have a topic "magnecule". It is established that this is pseudoscience. Therefore we do not have standalone article about "magnecules" no matter how many is written about them. Despise some serious scientists wasted time to debunk the bunk, we are not going to create numerous wikipedia articles about inventions of Ruggero Santilli: Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion of his theories. Same here. I am not against a generic article, List Nazi propaganda songs (cf. List of Nazi propaganda films), but I am strongly against having a separate page for each and every one without any critical discussion. There are notable ones, such as Horst-Wessel-Lied. But I would not call our article about it "nazi propaganda". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you're wrong. Notable propaganda is acceptable in Wikipedia. You chose to ignore the article on a film that's pure Nazi propaganda, Triumph of the Will. There are many, many more like that, e.g. The Eternal Jew. But why don't I direct you to our little (actually rather large) "List of Nazi propaganda films"?

If the contested article is indeed "full of propaganda" I already explained to you that Wikipedia frowns upon propaganda, any and all propaganda, so why don't you go ahead and improve it, starting with the defenestration of prop text? Because, if the subject is assessed to enjoy independent notability, the article stays up, no matter how odious it might be. So, the only "critical discussion" we can have is on the notability front. Anything else only weakens your argumentation and distracts. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are misrepresenting my argument. I did not write "full of propaganda" . I wrote "100% propaganda, and this is impossible to fix due to lack of sources". You are fighting with windmill, dragging red herring, putting your words in my mouth, preaching to the choir, and whats not. I do agree with your last point about distraction. I will be wiser in the future. NOTCENSORED is a red rag to a bull indeed. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're saying, but it's no big deal. If the quotation marks are confusing you, know that they do not always mean someone's quoting you verbatim; as far as I am concerned, when I quote someone, it's made clear I do. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this atrociously put together text for its total lack of supporting evidence of the subject's independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete per WP:TNT. The subject of the article is most probably notable per my BEFORE. However, it is currently unsourced and mainly contains the text in German and in English a description of the text - which is a Wikipedia:NOTREPOSITORY sort of thing that should go to wiki source. If someone picks up the gauntlet and turns this to an actual Wikipedia article - ping me and I will change my !vote.Icewhiz (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'm also fine with moving this to draft.Icewhiz (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Considering it is not longer a WP:NOTLYRICS fail and nom has withdrawn. Following TNT it is perhaps a workable stub, though sourcing does not establish notability it is probably notable - so I'm neutral.Icewhiz (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Comment. Sure, this is a propaganda song, but it is a notable one, judging from Google books search [22]. Yes, it is currently unsourced, but it can be sourced if anyone cares. By the same logic on could delete Wide is My Motherland and a lot of other similar pages. This is not a glorification of anything, but merely a subject that passes our notability guidelines, I think.My very best wishes (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits is not an argument. 95% are novels. Others are mentioning in passing "they sung "SS Machiert" Staszek Lem (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I do not know German. Perhaps you are right. My very best wishes (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ - I second Icewhiz, except replace TNT with V/NOR. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my !vote as the nom wishes to withdraw and I don't wish to stand in the way. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it was a well-known song in Third Reich and is notable for being sung often by Neo-Nazis in Germany as well as elsewhere (such as in Estonia).Miacek (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Songs are supposed to be sung right? Lets write an article "Majteczki w kropeczki" ("Polka-dot Panties"; cf. Polkadot Bikini) then. About 36,800 google hits. I say on par with SS Marschiert in Feindesland: About 45,200 results. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanna write an article, say, on Ukochany kraj you're very much welcome to do so (I cannot do it myself, being topic-banned).Miacek (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with my character, I'd rather do "Wychowanie" : "Ojczyznę kochać trzeba i szanować/Nie deptać flagi i nie pluć na godło" (for other people: it is an ironic parody to sugar-sweet duper-duper patriotic songs) allegedly by Zygmunt Staszczyk. As for 'Ukochany', the proper place for it is "Polish patriotic songs". I will see what I can do tomorrow: it does have verifiable notability and curiosity. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the italian wp has an article on the song here, but referencing is not helpful. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's available in Russian, Bulgarian, Estonian and a number of other wikis, too, where sources have been provided.Miacek (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly rename to Devil's song. Indeed, here is the link to corresponding page on French wiki, and there is a version on ruwiki - see ru:Чёртова_песня and other projects. A more focused Google books search for "Devil's song SS Marschiert" does recover a number of RS on the subject [23] (check this, for example). Of course it might be also merged to Nazi_songs. BTW, there was a poem by Paul Verlaine where he tells that unlike love, hatred will not leave any memory about itself in a song. This is not exactly the true. History keeps the record. So should we. My very best wishes (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The book you linked to is a fiction mystery novel by Bear Grylls. Did you mean to link to a different source? Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this link is only good to see that the song is widely known and appears in literature, including fiction. If anyone wants to describe the history of creation of the song (for example), they would need some RS. But I am not interested in this subject and simply commented on the AfD. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close: Whatever rationale the nom bolted onto this to make it look good, it's plain he's got an agenda here, and this is obviously a bad faith nomination. Wikipedia is still not censored, even for Nazi-related subjects. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a nn song. I see a couple of mentions of the name of the song in RS, but they are in passing and coincidental. In-depth discussion of the song itself not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep possibly rename to Teufelslied. Staszek Lem's rational appears to be that the Nazis are a menace and that deleting this article will help combat them. I would like to reassure him that the Nazis have already been defeated and they aren't coming back. Besides, surely it is a good thing to preserve evidence of where they admit to being evil? Woscafrench (talk) 09:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Woscafrench: You are sorely mistaken. Nazis are back. read some wikipedia, e.g., "Neonazism". Please explain how this article shows that it was evil. Yes, since there is no critical discussion in WIkipedia how this song is evil, the only way in Wikipedia today to combat the evil is to delete it. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not accurate to compare neo-Nazis with the SS. The SS were pretty serious. Woscafrench (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Staszek Lem, you could not have been more wrong. You wrote: "The only way in Wikipedia today to combat the evil is to delete it." Nope, entirely incorrect. And not only that, but this type of argumentation leads me to believe that the best way foward might be a speedy close of this AfD.

Wikipedia is not where you make combat with "evil." The rules are crystal clear: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda. The subject of an article may very well be propagandistic (as for example this article's subject, the song, indeed is) but we contributors are not allowed to engage in anti-propaganda postings or engage in personal, ideological battles. If you're not happy with this state of affairs, then you're not happy with Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Staszek Lem: Ah, so you are confirming that you believe this should be deleted simply because it's about a Nazi topic and doesn't contain a load of waffle highlighting how evil the Nazis were. In that case, definite Speedy Keep. Clear misuse of AfD to push an agenda and attempt to censor Wikipedia. This is not what we are here for. Get down off your soapbox and contribute to Wikipedia properly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No not "simply". Learn to read, buddy. Shut up your mentor tone and other insults. I am not calling you Nazi-agenda pusher, right? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you did, you couldn't be more wrong! I am in no way a "Nazi-agenda pusher" or a supporter of any extremist ideology. How am I insulting you by telling you to stop trying to get articles deleted by misrepresenting their content, which you clearly are doing? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment <sigh> You all guys seem not to see difference between texts which are propaganda and texts about propaganda. Second, You cannot be more wrong about combatting evil. Yes, I can combat evil in wikipedia following wikipedia rules. Suppose someone posts child pornography picture into wikipedia. I will be combatting evil by deleting it. Wikipedia combatted Scientology propaganda tooth and claw. And so on. The level of immaturity, failure to engage in proper discussion and lack of respect to a non-novice fellow Wikipedian displayed in this AfD is appalling to me. Good bye to you all. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You still got things all wrong, Staszek Lem. First of all, there has been no hint of pro- or anti-Nazi sentiments expressed in this little dialogue except by you.

Second, Wikipedia did not have any kind of "combat" against Scientology. A bunch of Wikipedia editors tried to create unduly slanted and poorly sourced text in favor of the creed. That attempt has been taken care of, by applying Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, which, let's not forget, are shaped by the community and not some Führer! :-)

You invoked the issue of child pornography in support of your stance on political propaganda. Well, there is a very strongly worded policy about the former, whereby editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships..., or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be blocked indefinitely. In other words, what you're doing on this issue, which is no different than what most of us are doing, is following Wikipedia policy. That's VERY different from what you advocate about presumed "Nazi propaganda." You are NOT supposed to "combat evil by deleting [Wikipedia articles]"! As it has been explained to you many times over in this AfD, Wikipedia is not the place to conduct ideological combat. End of story. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. We have many articles on Nazi concepts and propaganda(e.g. Mischling, or say this image). The question isn't whether it is or not propaganda - but whether it is presented in a critical encyclopedic manner on a notable topic. Copy-pasting propaganda here is a no-go. Reflecting what sources say about notable propaganda is a-ok.Icewhiz (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Staszek Lem: I'm afraid the only "immaturity" and "failure to engage in proper discussion" shown here is by the individual to whom it has been explained that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and not a forum to put one's own agenda across, but who continues to claim that they are in the right and others are in the wrong and also appears to make thinly-veiled suggestions that those who don't agree with them are tacit Nazi supporters. This is really not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Nobody is suggesting you're not a useful contributor, but here I think you're letting your own agenda blind you to the validity of others' opinions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, WP:NOTCENSORED, which I wholeheartedly agree with, made you blind and deaf to my argument: there is a huge difference between articles about propaganda and articles which content is nothing but propaganda. I am not running around deleting all the word of Hitler from wikipedia, do I? I am for deleting the text which is 100% propaganda, which, because there is no criticism of this propagande, is in gross violation of our WP:NPOV policy. And since no source is seriously discussing the article subject, the only resort is to delete it. Otherwise I would have expanded it myself, the same way I wrote other articles, such as Chief of Civil Administration, Reich Commissioner for the Consolidation of German Nationhood, or Putinversteher. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out to you already, this article is in no way propaganda. It presents facts, nothing more. How on God's earth is that propaganda? It wasn't propaganda when you nominated it[24]; it isn't now. Its notability may be questionable, but its status as clear non-propaganda is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Draft:Teufelslied was declined at AfC in Jan 2018, for lack of notability. Devil's song used to exist, but was nothing but a POV-driven collection of lyrics. It was eventually deleted as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Devil's Song. In all of it's incarnations, the article was failing WP:N and WP:NOTLYRICS. The articles on other wikis suffer from the same problems. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draft-ify There seems to be enough that it might be possible to write an encyclopedia article on this topic (probably as Devil's song), but the existing references aren't enough and the current article has fatal flaws. While many of the other-language Wikis are just collections of unsourced foreign-language song lyrics, the zh:党卫军在敌境前进 is almost OK. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty to remove all unsourced and blatantly WP:OR text from the article. It wasn't much but, then, the whole article isn't much, either, in terms of size. The stubby remains should be assessed not only for this AfD but for a possible Draft; they promise very little. And I still cannot find any sources besides that obscure, out-of-print book. The lack of independent notability is still prevalent. -The Gnome (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to acknowledge The Gnome makes my justification no longer terribly appropriate and register my support for a draftify outcome. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should also acknowledge Staszek Lem, who, despite having nominated the article for deletion, engaged in source sleuthing about it, improving the text's standing. -The Gnome (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggested to delete the contested article. But the nomination has been withdrawn and it appears there's no consensus to delete, so perhaps this AfD should be closed down. -The Gnome (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No good deed goes unpunished, eh. I don't see how this subject is exactly encyclopedic, but I don't have a terribly strong opinion and if the nom wants to withdraw, I struck my !vote so the withdrawal could go forward. In any case, thanks for cleaning it up! Smmurphy^(Talk) 05:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Geun-ho[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NHOCKEY. -The Gnome (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NHOCKEY. Septrillion (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jung Byung-cheon[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NHOCKEY. He's a rookie yet he must get a feature in Wikipedia's main space? Seems unlikely. -The Gnome (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NHOCKEY. Septrillion (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Kołtun[edit]

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

nn Polish killer Staszek Lem (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't pass GNG/NCRIME.Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for sheer lack of reliable sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Re-create it later if sources are found.BabbaQ (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NCRIME. Septrillion (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeon Jin-ho[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NHOCKEY. A veteran right winger but not in politics. -The Gnome (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NHOCKEY. Septrillion (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Hyun-mok[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NHOCKEY. Sophomore is being hasty. -The Gnome (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NHOCKEY. Septrillion (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eum Hyun-seung[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NHOCKEY. And one of the sources cited has an iffy link. -The Gnome (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NHOCKEY. Septrillion (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jung Ahn[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as subject has played in very strong tournaments for the national team and therefore (barely) misses WP:NHOCKEY. Detailed write up, decently sourced. -The Gnome (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Few mirrors of Wikipedia but nothing that important. Lorstaking (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NHOCKEY. Septrillion (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baek Min-chul[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NHOCKEY. A rookie misplaced for Wikipedia's first team. -The Gnome (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NHOCKEY. Septrillion (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Whitnum[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lee Whitnum appears in news searches primarily due to generating publicity by being arrested. Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges it's a judgement call as to whether that publicity meets the criteria for "significant press coverage." Please note I removed much of the content per longstanding concerns about self-promotion, as indicated by tags and the talk page. Previous version here.NE Ent 19:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NPOL. Whitnam is a non-notable gadfly who makes a nuisance of herself by staging stunts that get a line or two in local papers and get her arrested. one of her silly stunts got her covered in the Hartford Courant: "A Democrat from Greenwich who wants to run for governor on a judicial reform plank was arrested after allegedly creating a disturbance in the law library at the Stamford courthouse and trying to bite a judicial marshal, state police and judicial marshals say." She has gotten onto the ballot - usually the primary - several times, and lost by a landslide each time. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment In terms of gadfly notability, she seems to need to up her game to meet that of the likes of Robin Ficker, whose name elicited groans of dismay in the DC suburbs (and may be again, if rumors about him running for county executive are true). It's not clear to me that she is notorious enough at this point. Mangoe (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se — if she hasn't won election to a notable office, then she has to have preexisting notability for other reasons besides being a candidate. And no, getting herself arrested for campaign stunts is not in and of itself a reason why she would be more notable than most other candidates, especially if the coverage of her stunts and arrests is exclusively local. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 02:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Getting arrested a bunch of times doesn't qualify someone for a Wikipedia article, neither does losing a race for a public office.--AirportExpert (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]
Delete Not a politician really, just a candidate who did stupid things. Fails NPOL. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NPOL. Septrillion (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hammy Havoc[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still can find no evidence of notability under his AKA or real name. The best are some one line quotes of him talking about Facebook photos. And the blue links in the article were a little deceiving at first but they're just links to songs of notable artists that he has covered or remixed. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT per Chrissymad. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Septrillion (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boyd Irwin[edit]

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

Irwin had only minor roles. Beyond this, there are no reliable sources present in the article at all. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He starred in For Australia (1915) and had signifanct roles in many other films. He's pictured "Boyd+Irwin"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiu5ov-hOjaAhUJyoMKHRXvDUgQ6AEIWjAJ#v=onepage&q="Boyd%20Irwin"&f=false here for example. Decades of film work from silent era and beyond. Notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above and WP:BEFORE. Appeared in multiple films in the silent era, including staring roles. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR with "significant roles in multiple notable films", has over 100 feature films to his credit. Also passes WP:GNG with significant coverage like this. Cbl62 (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Irwin easily passes WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. This nomination fails WP:BEFORE and with its inaccurate intro should never have happened. Nominator has been explained time and again that an AfD does not replace a request for reference improvements. gidonb (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NACTOR. Septrillion (talk) 03:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. And salted. Randykitty (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Youm Wara Youm[edit]

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

Demo album of insufficient notability - no charting, self-released, only a single review to be found. Keeps being reinstated by creator, so I think some formal assessment and decision would be useful. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect - Redirect and protect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - not notable enough to warrant a redirect. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Demo from a notable band. Any objection to extending this AfD to include Your Heart Engraved These Messages and Rosecrance (EP)? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extend AFD - @Walter Gorlitz:, I support extending the AFD to include Your Heart Engraved These Messages and Rosecrance (EP). However, any album title by the band that has no higher use should be redirected to the band article per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - No sign of meeting the WP:GNG or any of the music guidelines - quite the opposite, as WP:NMUSIC corrected mentions, demos rarely get the coverage necessary to warrant their own article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is for use of fans who want to know about the album. It has original tracks from of the most critically acclaimed metal bands of the 21st century. I work very hard to make these known, as the tracks are actually decent songs (the non-remade ones). I also wanted the luxury of telling the band that I made them when I meet them. Also, they're DEMO albums. How come bands like Blink 182 and A Day to Remember have full demo pages while slightly less famous bands don't?? That is the real issue. I work hard for this, I genuinely listen to the band on a basis, and the only people going to visit the pages are people who WANT to learn about it. This is not the kind of page you typically would use as a reference for an essay, but it is useful in looking for music to find. I would put more articles for backing it up, but Myspace doesn't correctly archive their music, which pretty much all of their demos were received on. I think it is unnecessary to delete them, as I put time, effort, and tried really hard to look for sufficient research. The evidence is in the music itself. You will see a CLEAR similarity between these demos and their first studio EP; the instrumentals are the same, the lyrics are SLIGHTLY altered, but all in all, they're real demos. Wikipedia was created to INFORM PEOPLE. If I had it my way, metal would be in the mainstream. They didn't chart because they're not tunes straight out of a cereal box. But they do exist. If I lived in Chicago, I could EASILY find people who knew these demos or have copies of them. So please keep them. I have a lot of knowledge in the metal community, more than most people do, and I feel as if the article should be there in order to inform fans and deep-cut collectors of its existence. Thank you. Vlastella8 (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)vlastella8[reply]

Vlastella8: Your comments can be debunked by at least four Wikipedia policies, and there are probably more. See the following: Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, Wikipedia:Begging for Mercy, Wikipedia:I Like It. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - There has been no good reason for deleting instead of REDIRECTING the title. That being said, @Vlastella8: may add more information about it at Born of Osiris. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No good reason? Read the nomination plus the votes other than your own. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Doomsdayer520: everything that I see is a reason not to have the article, but not a reason to delete it entirely. According to WP:SUBNOT, "Appropriate redirects from the subject's name and entries in disambiguation pages can be created to help readers find such information". --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you're getting bent out of shape. Prior to your last comment, you didn't even give an actual reason for redirecting. As for your argument, is there any reliable sourcing at all to add any sourced commentary about the demo at any other target? Sergecross73 msg me 00:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply -@Sergecross73:, I would not say I am getting bent out of shape. According to this article, Youm Wara Youm does exist, and AFAIK, the term has no higher use, and should be redirected per WP:SUBNOT. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just meant, you were complaining that no reason was given for deletion over redirect, but your initial stances was "Redirect and protect - Redirect and protect." - you were criticizing someone for not providing a counterpoint to your argument when you yourself hadn't even given a reason in preference of redirect at the time. Anyways, as for the subject at hand, I prefer delete because the page history shows this has been a recurring problem. I'm afraid if we just redirect, the redirect may just be undone again in a few weeks when we've stopped paying attention. I'd rather we delete it now, but if you want to create a redirect after the deletion, so be it I guess (though I suspect it'll attract the same sort of sourcing, OR, and cruft issues currently happening at the article.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply -@Sergecross73:, if the term is protected so that only administrators can create the article, how can an article be created at that location by anyone other than an administrator? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of that constitutes a valid reason to keep the article. Please read up on the WP:GNG - Wikipedia's general guideline for whether or not a subject should have its own article. Sergecross73 msg me 00:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Vlastella8, it may be the greatest band the world has ever known. It may be that every fan of the band is only interested to find information about the band in Wikipedia and nothing else. The band's fans might even be very, very upset if the article is deleted and possibly commit acts of idolatrous sacrifice. We still need reliable sources testifying to the band's notability, as notability and sources are defined by Wikipedia. This is a very pedestrian project when you come to think of it: Our personal experience, personal testimony, or personal work do not matter at all; at least not as much as them goddamned sources. That's the game, though. -The Gnome (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, The Gnome If you think this is a "game", then I really pity your inability to find actual games in the world. Personal Experience? Not really. How about you personally experience what people want to do to trolls on the internet. Need a source for that? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlastella8 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're focusing on the main take-away of his message here - having reliable sources for a subject is not optional, and you're going to have a very hard time persuading anyone to keep the article without any. Sergecross73 msg me 03:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vlastella8, that's the game, yes. It's an expression meaning "this is what we have to abide by," "these are the rules," etc. Hope it's clear now. Take care, and keep looking for those sources. -The Gnome (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite its historical interest to fans, the album has received no media notice beyond brief listings of its existence. In light of the editors' passion for the band's history, as a compromise I see no problem discussing the existence of this demo as a historical event at the band's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing any and all criteria for notability, per nomination and commentary above. -The Gnome (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUM. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if not kept I won't bring it back again if it is that bad. I think it should be redirected though, as per Jax's comments. Vlastella8 (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)vlastella8[reply]

Comment - Vlastella8 deleted my comments. On 17:50, 3 May 2018, I restored my comments removing his statements in the process of doing so (it is my right to perform a wholesale revert in a case such as this). --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure what "right" you're alluding to here, but neither of you should be knowingly removing each other's content, regardless of who did it first. If you're aware enough to write this, you should be trying to restore all comments, his and yours. Sergecross73 msg me 03:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Sergecross73:, Vlastella8 deleted my comments, so I simply hit undo to restore my comments, which is a wholesale revert that I have the right to do if someone deletes my comments. I am not obligated to go through the process of parsing through everything. Vlastella8 knows that the comments were deleted, and he can add the comments back in the correct manner if he so chooses. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No such "right" exists. Furthermore, judging by Vlastella's editing, they're very inexperienced. It was likely an accident. You, on the other hand, are aware of what you did. That's worse. In the future, please try to restore other's comments when you knowingly remove it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since Jax isn't actually linking to it for some reason, this is the content that Vlastella added and Jax removed in their editing. At least it was inconsequential to the actual discussion - nothing said there should sway anyone's views on notability. Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vlastella had responded to my comment far above, and I did not notice because apparently Jax deleted the text. See the restored comments located by Serge for more evidence of Vlastella's attitude toward the process. We do not bite here but editors can take the opportunity to learn about WP procedures with humility. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NALBUM. Septrillion (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ground nozzle[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NOTE Magic Fizz (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, dicdef. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dictdef. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking any sources that suggest notability. The single "external link" takes us to a corporate website about nozzles. -The Gnome (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Splash pad, where they are mentioned in context in the lead. I haven't found enough in-depth RS to establish notability, but these seem a common feature of splash pads and water parks. A reader searching for ground nozzles would find the basic information in Splash pad and redirects are cheap. --Mark viking (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:DICDEF. Septrillion (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaveltons[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NME and it has been unsourced since September 2007. Magic Fizz (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - originally closed as G3'd but it's been restored. See this for more info. ansh 666 18:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as creator - I created this over a decade ago, when I was still new to Wikipedia and didn't really understand how to write an article. I'm neutral for now on notability, but it's definitely not a hoax and there's no reason whatsoever it should have been G3'd. Smartyllama (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Ajf773 (talk) 08:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree it's not hoax, but not notable either. The sources provided on Orangemike's talkpage are not strong enough to establish notability. They just proved this is not hoax.–Ammarpad (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not a hoax (as per Chicago Tribune article), but completely fails notability requirements of TV shows.FirefoxLSD (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Septrillion (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National & Capital[edit]

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

Delete No indications of notability, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The firm gets some mentions under its earlier name as part of timelines of Bear Stearns in the lead-up to the financial crisis (for example, [25]), but its acquisition does not appear sufficiently important to suggest merger-redirect into that article, or to maintain a distinct article. Routine announcements and regulatory listings are insufficient to demonstrate WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Septrillion (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drewberry Ltd[edit]

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

No indications of notability, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND and fail the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on an insurance intermediary firm, authored by a WP:SPA with a declared involvement and accepted through WP:AFC. The references are a mix of standard regulatory listings and occasional quotations by the company in articles (Independent, Daily Express) about their operating area. These verify that it is a firm going about its business, but I am seeing nothing in the article or elsewhere to indicate that it has accomplished encyclopaedic notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unremarkable company, no notable Ghits. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, and let's hope the check doesn't clear. -The Gnome (talk) 09:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Clearly written as a promotional exercise even if it has no adspeak. It doesn't make any claims of importance or significance and just because it has sources doesn't make it notable. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOTDIR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORGIND. scope_creep (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ORGIND. Septrillion (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Serlo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete Only possible claim to notability is winning the 2008 E&Y Young Florida Entrepreneur of the Year - except that award isn't enough to merit an article. Just seems like a Run-of-the-mill business executive. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John De Goey[edit]

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

Delete Entirely promotional, zero indications of notability. Fails WP:BASIC HighKing⁺⁺ 17:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ADVERT for investment advice guru. Sources to articles he has written and articles that quote him as an investment advice guru. Fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is entirely too dependent on primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in articles about something other than himself, with little to no evidence of any reliable source coverage about him. He doesn't get a free pass over our inclusion standards for either businesspeople or writers just because he and his work exist, but the sourcing here is not helping to get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Septrillion (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I am sensitive to the NTEMP argument. However, that would carry more weight if the previous AfD had been a resounding "keep". It wasn't, with only 1 keep !vote, 1 weak keep, 1 ILIKEIT, and 2 delete (counting the nom). Randykitty (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Van Oyen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

His only claim to notability, his YouTube channel, has been removed, and his website no longer exists. carelesshx _talk 16:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable Youtuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable Youtuber who violated Youtube's ToS. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking notability - a radio interview and a newspaper reference - these are reliable sources but the coverage is not significant enough to pass GNG. - Euryalus (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I would argue that there is more than sufficient WP:NEXIST (of mainly medium to lower quality sources though) to support WP:GNG, unfortunately. (My view is that the social media age has allowed too many of this type of irresponsible anti social self promoter to become notable... but c'est la vie.) Aoziwe (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SMH is the only significant RS mention. wumbolo ^^^ 13:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability. Septrillion (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sorry gang, but he passed muster in the first discussion and I'm not seeing any reason to overturn other than the youtube channel is removed and website no longer exists. But notability is not temporary. If there's a reason to overturn the previous decision please make it--but the reasons I read above are based on the present state of coverage and not historical.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I think the idea that notability is not transient is questionable, particularly when we're talking about social media celebrities but that's maybe not an argument for here. The article is currently out of date, though, as it refers to the subject in the present tense as a "candid camera and prank comedian" when, as stated, there is no evidence of this. If you were to bring the article up to date you would have an article on a guy who used to be on youtube (but isn't), wanted to be a photographer (but isn't), wanted to be a DJ (but isn't), has tweeted twice since January 2015, hasn't updated his facebook page since 2016... there is nothing that warrants an article except some failed ambitions, a radio interview and a court appearance. If you were writing the article now there is no way it would hold up. carelesshx _talk 14:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NTEMP is a guideline and guidelines are not infallable. Still, it is widely supported. Abraham Lincoln hasn't done anything since he died, but he's still notable. If this were a news source, I'd agree... but it's not, it's an encyclopedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Farlow[edit]

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

Not seeing any notability. Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not convinced the 1000-citation count for his book on PDE is valid (there is another book with the same title that Google Scholar might be confusing it with) but I think the five published reviews for two of his books that I just added to the article are enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing how he passes author, reviews do not seem to be mentioned. He may pass widely cited, but as you say it may not be him.Slatersteven (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews are definitely him and are definitely cited as sources in the current version of the article. There is no rule (and should be no rule) that we talk about the reviews in the text of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was just looking through the reviews of his books myself and coming to the conclusion that he meets WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:AUTHOR due to recent edits. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:AUTHOR. Septrillion (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as G11 Promotional. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Musk Ming[edit]

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

BLP failing GNG with max 1 indi RS. Looks toosoon/borderline N, combined with promo (COI / WP:SPA) Widefox; talk 16:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy - seems to be promotion (WP:G11). Kirbanzo (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New England Cavalry[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with no local news coverage and only a few WP:ROUTINE game coverage from other teams, primarily the decent local coverage of the Richmond Roughriders (such as this mention) and a couple of "local former high schooler/Div. III college football players signs with..." WP:NOTNEWS articles (such articles lack the "significant coverage" portion of GNG ans the team really only gets a mention, such as this somewhat mis-informed article about a signing to the "AFL"). The article seems to have been created with "presumed notability" as they claim they are professional, however, there is no guideline for such a claim in WP:NORG (specifically WP:ORGSIG) and we must judge on GNG alone. As this is a travel-only team for the time being, it is either WP:TOOSOON for significant local coverage or possibly just not notable. Yosemiter (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON, and fails WP:GNG. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion would be inappropriate as an article on the parent org exists. See WP:PRESERVE. A redirect to American Arena League seems appropriate for now. If substantial coverage is received in the future and a stadium space acquired can be restored. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NSPORT. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete two Facebook links and their team website? Out of interest, I checked the news sources and found some passing mentions on news articles about other teams. I'm giving this one a fail of WP:GNG and possibly WP:ADV with the only sources provided as those from the team itself.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great North Midget League[edit]

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

Youth hockey league which fails WP:GNG, due to all coverage being WP:ROUTINE. Flibirigit (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for similar reasons as nom and because the current page strikes me as promotional. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it might be interesting, this is simply just a youth league on par with leagues that participate in something such as the Little League World Series for hockey, which are not themselves notable despite participation in a notable annual event (in this case it would be the Telus Cup. The youth league itself only gains WP:ROUTINE coverage from their very localized media. So while a G-News search gets about 800 hits, in the first 100 articles they are all just mentions in the vein of "Foo player starred for XXXX team of the GNML when he was 15" or "XXXX team won 4-2 over YYYY team in the GNML playoffs last night", etc. Yosemiter (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although the arguments were relatively split between "keep" and "delete", the keep arguments fall to the WP:ITEXISTS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS category. Therefore based on the strength of the arguments the consensus is delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Hills Estate[edit]

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

Brochure articles, highly promotional. WP is not a web host. Fails the new WP:NCORP standard. scope_creep (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a page that was approved. All the information is from online news sites, and is based on fact as it is a current development within Dubai. All areas of ambiguity have been deleted, therefore it should not be deleted. there are plenty of pages that have less information online than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AETEST (talk • contribs) 12:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more time: Arguing that "other bad stuff exists in Wikipedia" does not get you anywhere. Try, instead, to locate sources that validate the subject's notability. -The Gnome (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plain and simple, it's an WP:ADVERT, can't be saved. We're not real estate listings. Nate • (chatter) 14:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this attempt at a promotional article about a subject that fails Wikipedia's criteria of notability. Take it outside, folks. -The Gnome (talk) 09:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page talks about a massive development that's happening in Dubai, that in itself is surely notable. Rather than deleting, surely it should just be added to as the project gets developed further. Alaaeldahshan (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are real estate developments in Dubai going on all the time. There is nothing exceptional about new estates being built there. The boom continues apace. What else do you got? -The Gnome (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a tough one to close. It would be helpful if a dispassionate discussion regarding the value of the individual sources were discussed, rather than "there's no substantial coverage" "yes there is!" "No there's not!"... As this has already been relisted three times I'm not going to relist again. If I had to choose between a binary option at gunpoint I'd close as "delete", but I don't believe the consensus is strong enough here to do that. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1DayLater[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Coverage appears limited to buzz from when the company started in 2010 (it closed in 2013). Is included on some "Best of 2010" lists but none provide more substantial information about the company. A previous AfD seems to have focused on whether or not now-defunct companies can be notable (they can). Looking through the sources that exist, I'm not sure there's enough here to support an article (or to call "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."). Thoughts? Ajpolino (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants from previous AfD @Czar, Margin1522, Stalwart111, and Davey2010:. Ajpolino (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Originally I was in favor of deleting this, but then someone convinced me that even a defunct site can be worth keeping for historical reasons. So I went out and found the Wayback Machine archive of the closing announcement, which as I recall took some time. Currently we are the #1 hit for "1DayLater" on Google, and the app is still being recommended at app sites like this one. The article got about 1500 page views in the year 2017, which is 1500 people who found out what they needed to know (that the app is defunct and they need to find a different one). I don't see what useful purpose would be served by deleting it now. – Margin1522 (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - some minor references. Did not survive long enough to become notable.--Rpclod (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliavle independemt sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP and significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. What's this "we," Margin1522 ?-The Gnome (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Per nom. -Mar11 (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep it seemed to pass the discussion the first time around and I see no reason to overturn that decision. Notability is not temporary.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Fisher (rail architect)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Both references are minor and only mention him once. ELEKHH^T 11:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find much of anything about him. Probably too soon. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to D. S. Bradford. Randykitty (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good for the Gander (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, no significant independent coverage, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 10:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. The poster made me laugh, the duck looks so sad...💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 11:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Independent sources have been added. Please reconsider. talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to D. S. Bradford. This just doesn't have the needed coverage just yet to really justify inclusion on Wikipedia. THBAO, the sources you added either aren't the type that would show notability or they're not enough on their own. IMDb isn't seen as a reliable source since it accepts user submitted content and doesn't have a very good verification system. Two of the sources pretty much report on the same thing: the release of a trailer. The Fox source is OK, but not really enough to firmly show notability. I think that this should redirect to Bradford's article until more coverage becomes available, upon which point it can be restored. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The Fox report is a reprint of a press release[26], so it also does not meet secondary sourcing standards. BOVINEBOY2008 22:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if it gets at least two reviews in reliable sources, preferably more, once it is released it can be recreated and G4 would not apply, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar Converter[edit]

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

WP:NOTESSAY. Many other problems (essentially uncited, orphan, no lead, etc.) that wouldn't warrant deletion, but further indicate the nature of the article. Lithopsian (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A mish-mash of material that is already covered, with much better writing, at other articles. Also this article ought not to be linked to from other articles until this debate is concluded. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this blatantly personal work that appears without a trace of a reference and claims notability for a subject fully covered elsewhere. So far, the contributions of article's creator are mostly about calendars. Ours is a big tent. -The Gnome (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOTESSAY. Septrillion (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anoosh Jahanshahi[edit]

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

Dubious notability, autobiography ¤ KOLI ^{12 Ordibehesht 1397 ≈} 09:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice against recreation if significant new coverage turns up (i.e., something more substantial than this). Randykitty (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Layne (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor with only a few episode appearances to his credit. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom SeraphWiki (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when you have as the closest to a major role "submarine pilot" this is a sure sign of not being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he's getting lots pf cpverage for his role in the upcoming Jirassic film and is listed as a costar here. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mostly bit roles until recently but has named roles in the Patrick Melrose series as Shades, Barkhad in 15 Minutes De Guerre, and in a widely reported rple as a submarine captain in the upcoming (June) Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom film. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I would be happy to userfy to an established editor in good standing who wishes to merge this information elsewhere J04n(talk page) 19:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 TVB Anniversary Awards[edit]

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

An event is unlikely to be notable, fails the WP:GNG B dash (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One thing if this celebrated the entirety of Hong Kong television, but this is literally an infomercial for TVB programming that gets trophies merely for existing on TVB (along with the insufferable ballot stuffing that comes with singular-network awards). A deletion of the entire strand of TVB Anniversary Awards articles on WP:ADVERT grounds should be seriously considered as a nomination; no other network can possibly win this trophy for their programs. Nate • (chatter) 20:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also for the rest of the AfD, if your logic is there, then many other awards pages which is linked to a specific channel needs deletion. e.g. 2018 Star Awards or 2016 SBS Drama Awards. Either Keep all or Link/Merge all or Delete all as Wikipedia must have consistency. So what is your stand??? If the reasoning is fails the WP:GNG, it's still valid but citation needed template maybe better??? that I don't know. --Quek157 (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FURTHER Comment For different countries in Asia, it's different. In Hong Kong, the only terrestrial channel is TVB. And many people (no citation for this though) does watch only TVB as it is almost the only FTA. So Since the majority only watch the channel and only that channel have that kind of exposure, it will be deemed as 100% of the nation. For Korea, yes, there are KBS, EBS, MBC, SBS but each have their own awards, (if you reference the korean wiki, the entertainment awards are given their whole page also). For Singapore, my home country, we only have MediaCorp and Star Awards are the national award - even the Minister in charge of Communications will officiate. So my final criteria of notability that I can propose is that

1. If the terrestrial channel have significant share in the country and (EMPHASIS) the page is properly cited (i.e. with secondary reliable sources), we should Keep as per meeting WP:GNG. (or any other benchmark you can propose)

Implications of this approach: A lot of tedious admin work is needed and there will be so much trawling to be done, so it's hard...

Therefore, I wold humbly propose that this entire Afd to be "no consensus" and ~~keep~~ and the nominator should go through each and every site in Asia for awards which are contentious and do a group Afd (meaning all the articles together). This will generate enough consensus (and ease the process for all of us to see) + this will allows trends to be seen plus admin backend work will be easiler. disparate Afds makes it very hard for another people to see and edit. Will also copy this to others Afd by nominator... as per othr Afd --Quek157 (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Addition: My meaning of group Afd is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Afd_footer_(multiple). --Quek157 (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge WP:LISTCRUFT WP:FANCRUFT - I can't believe that so many articles have been created in regard to an award given by a TV station for its own programs! A lot of information is duplicated in other articles to justify a dedicated template Template:TVB_Awards. The information can easily consolidated to a single article. All these separate articles don't add much value. I am familiar with Hong Kong TV and I understand the dedication and passion of the HKers that most likely created it, but it has limited relevance in English speaking environs. I know that these articles have a Chinese language counterpart which may have greater relevance to justify existence. Acnetj (talk) 08:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment relevance doesn't seem to have anything to do with notability which is where an article stands or not. I don't mind merging all the pages into one though. will rather merge than delete. the template is another thing . that will be a tfd. problem is how to merge. The fact that it have an article for each year at Chinese wiki is in fact stronger for the keep as it means that it's notable in Chinese wiki. remember many English Wikipedia articles comes from translation of other languages and since notability is established there. this may lend some weight here. though transwiki may be one but this is Wikipedia in different languages not as if it's wiki dictionary. I am still of neutral stance leaning to keep as no real good arguments coming up

Final take for me in these disparate Afds, no particular opinion as there are values to keep, delete have some reasons, while merge / redirect seems nice and appropriate, merging into TVB will cause a lot of information to be lost, to merge all the awards into 1 article will lead to a mammoth, to cut doesn't seem right. I think some of those who proposes merge should contact the editors / wikiproject to try to merge or create a proper new article which will lend more weight with combined sources than just one per page. --Quek157 (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is fine to merge them to a TVB Awards page for all years and all categories but not each article for each year and each category. Acnetj (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am ambivalent on this. On one hand, it's very attractive proposition as that will be good. On the other hand, the current article is 115,284 bytes, given that we are merging based on categories, it should be reduced to 60,000 bytes (around). With 13 years, it will be 780,000 bytes (if we do plain formatting it may reduced to around 400,000 bytes). Unless we remove the nominees. I will think such a list is way too big and hard to understand. We have to really find a way to merge. And why am I copying and pasting my comments on every Afd everytime. I really hope nom will group all articles together. Do also note that the 2016 version is closed as "non-consensus" by another admin 78.26. I am not sure why these comments are not there and now suddenly there is an influx of such comments after that particular Afd was closed. I hope all are done in good faith. We may need to revisit the Afd also. --Quek157 (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment - Such lists are useful when properly referenced for Afd (ironically), see how the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nick_Joong progresses, a list for 2016 SBS Drama Awards makes the notability of a person so clear. I know this is not an argment as to whether this list can meet WP:GNG but is a good reference for any admin / NPP / Afc participant to determine whether that person passes WP:GNG. --Quek157 (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and move to Murder of Rick and Suzanna Wamsley; consensus seems pretty clear that notability is found here, but not in the context of this individual perpetrator, rather the conspiracy and event as a whole. I'll perform the move and briefly reframe the article at this point, but it could benefit from further attention. ~ mazca ^talk 18:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC) ~ mazca ^talk 18:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Wamsley[edit]

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

This was deleted in 2011 and I think consensus was just flat-out ignored. Two months after being deleted, the article was re-created with info on the co-conspirators. This article, however, is not about them. Wamsley is only known for one event and that event may not even be notable in itself. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crime news reporting source, it is not a newspaper. Not everyone who gets a death sentence is notable, let alone everone who is charged with a crime that in their jurisdiction could lead to the death sentence. That is the only standard that could make Wamsley notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Murder of Rick and Suzanna Wamsley (which is what this article covers in any event) - there were 3 PERPs here, and this particular one is possibly not the most noteworthy one. This was widely covered when it broke. It is still being reported as a notable example of parent murder - CNBC 2018, death sentencing was a topic covered in 2005 as well as in 2011 and 2012 following an appeal process that lasted a few years - which is also covered in this book. The crime and Andrew Wamsley were the subject of a full-length 272 page book (by St. Martin's Press - not self published) - The Good Son: A True Story of Greed, Manipulation, and Cold-Blooded Murder.Icewhiz (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Murder of Rick and Suzanna Wamsley as per arguments, sources brought by User:Icewhiz.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Murder of Rick and Suzanna Wamsley per above power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete, or keep and rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename as per Icewhiz Nosebagbear (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kiran Muppavarapu[edit]

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

Film producers/directors are not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia unless they direct/produce multiple notable films. The subject has co-produced only two films so far so I don't see meeting WP:AUTHOR yet. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person so she fails GNG as well. Saqib (talk) 09:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, a non-notable film producer who has not gained significant coverage by reliable sources. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator's comments. Norcaes (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 11:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayakumar Vattikuti[edit]

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

Film producers/directors are not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia unless they direct/produce multiple notable films. The subject has co-produced only two films so far so I don't see meeting WP:AUTHOR yet. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person so he fails GNG as well. Saqib (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, a non-notable film producer who has not gained significant coverage by reliable sources. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator's comments. Norcaes (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 De Warenne family. Anything that might be worth merging is still available in the article history. Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph de Warenne[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Subject has not received significant coverage. The article has a lot of references, but this is by way of WP:SYNTH, spinning a story out of family context and scant instances where the subject has been mentioned in passing when describing grants made by other family members, plus a convoluted discussion of the origin of a branch of the family that may or may not be his descendants. All that is really known about him is that he existed and he patronized Lewes priory, and that is not enough. There is nothing noteworthy about him and he has received no substantial coverage. All of this information about him already appears on De Warenne family, and there is no good reason to have a separate article on such an obscure person just because he was son and brother of notable people (WP:NOTINHERITED), and arguably ancestor of a junior branch of the family (WP:NOTGENEALOGY) that itself is not independently notable and is covered on a page about the whole family. This should be Merged/Redirected to De Warenne family, which already contains all of the relevant information as a result of implementation of a prior AfD.

Previous AfD closed as as merge, but was problematic because the selected target was a disambiguation page, William de Warenne. Following discussion, closing administrator indicated they would "not mind changing it to 'no consensus'," [27] but no change was ever made. A year later, after I tried to implement the spirit of the decision by merging to De Warenne family, an involved party (not the closing administrator) changed the close retroactively to "no consensus", [28] citing the never-implemented comment by the closing administrator. Agricolae (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Do we really have to do this again? A historical figure does not have to do something noteworthy to be notable. There doesn't have to be a lot known for significant coverage to exist. Case in point, the rather undistinguished Ralph de Warenne has received significant coverage in the multiple reliable sources cited in the article, mainly because of his potential connection to the Whitchurch Warennes. There is no WP:SYNTH. The main secondary sources cited (Farrer 1923; Farrer & Clay 1949; Eyton 1859) are specifically about Ralph de Warenne and the article summarises what they say about him. The more tangential mentions in other secondary sources, and the few primary sources, are used appropriately, to clarify points of fact and make what is, as you say, an obscure and convoluted historical topic a little easier to parse.

Regarding the previous AfD, you have neglected to include a crucial diff, where I confirmed with MBisanz that we could proceed with "no consensus". I assume he forgot to update the AfD hatnote, which is what I rectified recently, but that is neither here nor there: the discussion did not result in a consensus and the closing admin agreed. It wasn't simply a technical obstacle; that so many participants in the last AfD proposed a merge with a disambiguation page with a completely different name is a sure sign that they didn't read the page properly, and is exactly why their !votes should have been given little to no weight in the close. Attempting a merge with an article that didn't even exist when the last AfD was closed therefore doesn't reflect the "spirit" of its consensus at all.

And to make another correction to the nomination: most of this information is also in De Warenne family because you copied it there a couple of weeks ago. I don't have a problem with that, but it's absurd to argue for deletion on the basis that the content is redundant to a merge you have just done yourself with no prior consensus. In any case, we can keep De Warenne family as a summary style parent article. The fact that there is some overlap doesn't mean that we have to delete Ralph de Warenne or any of the other independently notable members of the family. – Joe (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have to do this again. The previous AfD concluded he was not really notable - that you managed to lobby this into a 'no consensus' that you yourself implemented doesn't miraculously conjure out of the ether additional sources that actually give him significant coverage. I apparently did not make it clear enough if you think the nomination has anything to do with redundancy - it is about NOTABILITY and NOTGENEALOGY. I only mentioned that the information is on the family page to indicate that we are not going to be losing any worthwhile information about this obscure person were this article to become a redirect. Yes, we could keep both articles, but we shouldn't because this person has not received any coverage except in passing when discussion something else entirely, his father's and brother's grant and the fact that the first Warenne of Whitchurch had a father named Ranulph who may be this man or may not be this man. Even the 'significant coverage' you claim the sources addressing the latter give him, amounts to the fact that he existed, and he had a son William who confirmed a grant he made. That is passing reference, not significant coverage, not notability. Agricolae (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect As the first nominator for deletion (god knows I didn't anticipate all this), I still believe that subject is not notable. None of the arguments I have seen since then establish his notability. However, I am perfectly happy to see a redirect to the family article. Suggest we put everything else aside and do it. Rogermx (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - My feeling with genealogy articles on nobles from a long time ago is that there are a lot of pages with low standards on the internet which talk about figures like this. There is enough material in reliable sources to write a decent article with decenst standards about this person, and I don't see it as unencyclopedic. Coverage is in multiple sources, and thus is not NPOV. Everything is cited, so it doesn't fail V. I disagree that there is OR: concerns about SYNTH seem like a stretch to me as the sources are discussing this individual and uncertainty surrounding him, and this article doesn't, in my opinion, go beyond the sources in any way. Multiple sources independent sources discuss the individual and discussions extend multiple paragraphs and pages in Farrer & Clay 1949, so there seems to be a weak case for GNG. Just in case there is any confusion, Joe and I contributed heavilly to the article, and Joe posted about this AfD to my talk page, although I would have seen it and !voted in any case. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the primary sources, based on the article, appear to be mostly trivial ones related to his relatives. There appears to be enough research about him in secondary sources to justify keeping the article, although if there's a case that the article is synthesis ("Antiquities of Shropshire" says Of Ralph little has been recorded except his name; if other sources are equally insubstantial I would be concerned), it might be reasonable to redirect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The concern raised by @Power~enwiki is exactly my reason for the nomination. Eyton says of him Of Ralph little has been recorded except his name. Clay says of him The details known about Ralph are are mainly confined to mentions made of him in his father's charters or as witness to charters issued by his brother the third earl. His name is invariably Radulfus, and never Ranulfus, a name which is usually quite distinct.(p. 37) Elsewhere Clay says he made donations with his brother, he witnessed donations of his brother, and he probably isn't the Whitchurch founder. Three sentences total (p. 10), one simply saying who he apparently isn't is not significant coverage. When the authors themselves treat him as obscure, why are we trying to turn him into a notable figure? (or is the argument that the act of these authors in calling him obscure imbues him with notability?) Agricolae (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and I say this as the person who did the research/writing on his brother Reginald de Warenne). I just looked through everything I have looking for mentions of this person. There is one mention in my library of him - in Keats-Rohan's Domesday Descendants (p. 777) where his entry reads "de Warenne, Radulf II. Younger son of William II de Warenne and Isabel de Vermandois." and then it lists Clay Early Yorkshire Charters, Douglas Social Structure of Medieval East Anglia, and Dugdale for charter entries. No ODNB entry for him. Tellingly, Radulf is NOT mentioned in the various sources that discuss Reginald, his brother - which include all the biographies of the monarchs, various works on the Anglo-Norman aristocracy, a lot of clerical history and biography, Green's English Sheriffs to 1154, and Sanders' English Baronies. To be honest, I couldn't find any references to the William fitzRadulf who is theorized to be his son either - there isn't any listing for William in any of the sources I consulted either (and I probably have every source that would be expected to mention someone from this time period). There is a de Warenne, Willelm Filius Rainaldi mentioned in Keats-Rohan as the son of Reginald, but his entry is just "son of Rainald de Warenne of Wormegay". Ealdgyth - Talk 23:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ealdgyth. Srnec (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Either Keep or Merge/Redirect. De Warenne family#Whitchurch is a suitable target. The problem of who he was is dealt with there. PLain deletion ought not to be an option, where we have a substantial article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To the article, yes, but not to that section. If one accepts the Clay reference, the most recent and most clearly thought out source, the current article is mixing accounts of two different people: Ralph, son of William the second Earl, always appears in the historical record as Radulph (the correct form of the name that became Ralph in modern English), while the ancestor of the Whitchurch line always appears as Ranulf, a distinct name at the time. Thus the namespace 'Ralph' doesn't refer to the Whitchurch ancestor at all and shouldn't redirect to the section. However, the Earl's brother is named earlier in the article, wo the De Warenne family article as a whole would be a legitimate target. To send it to the section that it doesn't relate to just perpetuates the 19th century confusion that Clay dismisses (and that underlies some of the arguments about notability here). The current article is a memorial to this mistaken identity. Agricolae (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV. We don't base articles on single views just because they are the most recent source. Joe Roe (mobile) (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, instead we base it on dated, poorer-quality work dismissed by more recent scholarship. No POV in that. Agricolae (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography. Randykitty (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music! 66 (U.S. series)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Searches did not turn up the type of in depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG, and nothing in the article shows it passes WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This appears to be part of a notable series, since apparently we've chosen to create a page for each installment, with almost 100 UK entries and 66 US entries. I expect the Australian ones should all be deleted out of principle, since they have terrible taste in music (only Australia would have a pop band called Kisschasy), but this must not be the majority view.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest a redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography since it is extremely doubtful significant coverage of this specific volume will ever exist.

The series may be notable but not each individual volume. Despite them selling well and charting, they do not otherwise receive coverage in 3rd party sources. There have been some initial discussions about what to do about these on the talk page of the main article over the years but without much traction, mainly because it's a bit of a task. I finally got something off the ground by creating a draft at User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars/Now UK, where the idea would be to include the more significant, sourceable info and redirect the individual album articles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a thankless task in the long run, to me. I've seen AfDs for these articles over the years and the articles keep getting recreated, as far as I can tell. The very nature of Wikipedia allowing everyone to edit puts boundaries on what we can reasonably do. E.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 86 (UK series), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 29 (U.S. series), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 68 (U.K. series).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those were all nominated because they were created well before their actual release. More recent consensus suggests something should be done (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 51 (UK series) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 52 (UK series)), and both of those articles are now redirects. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment these always meet the letter of WP:NALBUM once they're released; this one is released in less than a month and there's no reason to delete it for that time period. The argument that these are better handled as redirects to a single article is compelling, if this closes as Redirect I am likely to start a merge proposal / RFC to merge all of them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I am in agreement with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars and Power~enwiki - these should all be merged to a single article about the series. Each individual album on its own does not require a separate article unless it is exceptionally remarkable. I'll keep an eye on this and am happy to help with the task when the time comes. An RfC sounds like the best first step. Richard ⁰⁶¹² 09:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's been released, and it's just as notable as the other albums in the series. The albums all meet WP:NALBUM. You'd have to go out of your way to have a deletion discussion for each of the individual articles on all of the albums. Paintspot Infez (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've started an RFC. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And I've withdrawn that RFC. One of the results of the discussion is that it was noted NALBUM does not appear to be sufficient if GNG is not met. The references are the NOW! marketing Twitter, Facebook, and the iTunes store. GNG is clearly not met, so my vote is Delete (and redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography). power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WWE Greatest Royal Rumble. The "delay" !votes are based on the idea that while there currently is not enough evidence of notability, there may be some in the future. Many of the "keep" !votes are not very convincing. A redirect to the parent article seems the best solution. Any content that is worth merging there is still available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Greatest Royal Rumble Championship[edit]

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

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

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

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

Clearly WP:TOOSOON. The "championship belt" is likely exactly the same as any other toy belt that is given out. Hasn't recieved any press, and shouldn't be treated as any other championship belt until it is announced that it would be defended. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At this point I have WP:DOUBT as to whether or not there will be notability, so I tend to lean toward keep in those situations. There is no harm in leaving it and nominating it once we see how things play out. Although not on the listed atop of the superstar pages with the other championships, this is a new belt so not sure how they will treat it. Judge by the belt's actual page [29], the WWE appears to consider this a current title. - Galatz ^Talk 10:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potential notoriety in the future is not a keep criteria, WP:CRYSTALBALL would take effect. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it is too soon to determine is not CRYSTAL, it is an argument to keep rather than rush to delete. The question isn't whether or not it got coverage, because clearly it did, the question when determining whether or not to delete this is if it is WP:LASTING. That CANNOT be determined yet. If you think me saying its too soon is CRYSTAL, then you saying it isn't lasting is crystal. Like I said, I tend to lean toward keep and reevaluate in a couple months once the facts are known. That is why there is WP:RAPID. - Galatz ^Talk 11:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delay~~ Redirect - Delay the deletion. WWE seems to not recognized Braun Strowman as the WWE Greatest Royal Rumble Champion on RAW (The Raw after Greatest Royal Rumble). This can indicate that this is a one time thing, and the Championship is not moving forward. Colton Meltzer (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC) My stance is now Redirect. Despite the "Keep", After seeing WWE Backlash (2018), this WWE Greatest Royal Rumble Championship is a one time thing (and this championship belt is just a award like a trophy (with no reign or how many days held). The page can be re-created if it does become relevant again in the future.Colton Meltzer (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delay - Agree with Galatz and Colton Meltzer. Delay for a bit to see what happens. This could turn out to be a yearly reward for this particular match, akin to the WrestleMania battle royal trophies, although this match has both a trophy and a belt, but that's beside the point. --JDC808 ♫ 20:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delay At this point it seems that WWE is uncertain to what they're going to do with with the championship. We should delay any decision until something occurs with WWE. - ZSJUSA
Delete. No such title exists. It's just a trophy and has never been defended. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No one knows exactly what's to become of it, but it was literally just introduced a week ago. It hasn't exactly had the opportunity to be defended yet if it is a title that will be defended. --JDC808 ♫ 03:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - "No such title exists" - incorrect. According to WWE.com the title is exactly the same as the other championships. It says Braun Strowman is the current champion and has been champion for 5 days and 3 hours. This is exactly what they do for other championships. If it was just a one-time thing, why would he have been champion for 5 days? WWE doesn't list Matt Hardy as having been the Andre the Giant winner for x amount of days, because thats not a Championship, but this is. Not to mention, WWE showed Braun with the title on his shoulder during the past RAW when promoting Backlash. To say it's not a real championship and therefore doesn't deserve a page is a dumb argument. The title history is brief at the moment, but it will only grow like the other new titles. Goku4Star (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep. This is a new championship belt so WWE has no absolute idea what to do with it at the moment and they have considered this belt a sanctioned championship unlike the WWE Internet Title that's with Zack Ryder which is still disputed and unsanctioned. Kyrios320 (talk) 07:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid keep criteria. We only include championships if they meet WP:GNG. This championship may be important in the future, or maybe it will never be defended, and be completely worthless. However, we shouldn't be keeping an article simply based on the fact it may be used later. See WP:CRYSTALBALL. Currently, WP:ITEXISTS, and has minute amounts of press coverage, The Sportster and CBS Sports articles are fine, but every other mention doesn't provide WP:SIGCOV. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The title literally just came out. You're making such a rash decision. Where are your sources saying it won't be defended? You dont have them. It's an official title and therefore deserves a page. You can't just tell someone their opinion to keep the article isnt valid. If in one years time it's never defended then sure, delete it, but it literally just came out and got massive coverage. You can't say it doesnt deserve a page. Goku4Star (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the same reasons as the other keeps. MarioFan78 (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the statements above and the other people voting keep. Pokkeballs17 (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2018 (GMT)
Keep - Per all of the "keep" votes above. Hansen Sebastian 09:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

IT IS A KEEP WILL YA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmm134 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I doubted it at first, but it has some pretty significant coverage and is being treated as an actual championship, as far as I can tell. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above. TheDeviantPro (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WWE Greatest Royal Rumble. The "Keep" voters are relying on WP:OR and speculation that this will happen again (the claim that since a timer appears on the WWE website the title is meaningful, in particular, is pure WP:OR). The page can be re-created if it does become relevant again in the future. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not Original Research that this is an officially recognized Championship and is treated as such. Goku4Star^Talk 21:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep WWE's official website has now officially announced Braun Strowman as the Greatest Royal Rumble Champion and recognizes the Greatest Royal Rumble Championship. Please watch out this link: wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/greatest-royal-rumble-championship User:Hamza Ahmad Wiki Scientist

I understand WWE posted on their WWE.com Championship page, but WWE did not recognize Barun Storwman as WWE Greatest Royal Rumble Champion on the RAW after Greatest Royal Rumble and Backlash 2018 on the graphics during the their entrances 3 times already. They even said he won the Championship Belt and the Trophy (Indicating these just same type of awards (No Regins and no # days held). If that is the case than we might not need a page. Eventually Championship will go defuct. Colton Meltzer (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you should re-visit the page on wwe.com, wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/greatest-royal-rumble-championship. WWE recognizes Strowman as the Greatest Royal Rumble Champion for more than 12 days. User:Hamza Ahmad Wiki Scientist

Saying there is no reigns or number of days held is just ignorant Colton Meltzer. Braun won the GRR Championship AND a Trophy. That doesn't mean they are the same thing. Goku4Star^Talk 17:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Goku4Star: Until WWE recognizes Braun Strowman as WWE Greatest Royal Rumble Champion on TV, because WWE has not for 3 times already. (WWE Raw after Greatest Royal Rumble, Backlash (2018), WWE Raw after Backlash) on theirs graphics during entrance or from announcer. There going many people disagreeing ,despite the keeps, to keep this page. Colton Meltzer (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Colton Meltzer: Well that's not entirely true. They did show a graphic of Braun Strowman wearing the belt on the night after the GRR when promoting Backlash. Michael Cole has called him the GRR champion on commentary. They had GRR championship graphics the night of as well, clearing indicating it's a championship. I was commenting on this statement you made by the way: "Indicating these just same type of awards (No Regins and no # days held)", which is ignorant of the Title History section on WWE.com. Either way the title has gotten a lot of coverage and is clearly notable. As well as the fact that you just can't argue that it's not an officially recognized Championship. Goku4Star^Talk 02:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with WWE Greatest Royal Rumble There's a lot of debate about just what the hell this thing is but it's really irrelevant in terms of notability. Most of this information is duplicated from the WWE Greatest Royal Rumble article in the first place, there shouldn't be a second article until we know what the hell this is and it passes WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Foxes[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and GNG no reviews found on either of the sources provided only user generated content. Page recreated after having been Prodded Dom from Paris (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This film is a cult movie classic, a classic revenge film. Needs more references but it's notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. I'm the creator of this article. Neptune's Trident (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources in the article seem reliable. Without the addition of more reliable sources, the article fails WP:NFILM. The article creator should more closely read the guidelines therein, and prove their argument rather than merely stating their belief it is notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it has a lot of reliable sources book coverage and academic coverage as shown in a google books search under "Mad Foxes" film Atlantic306 (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Critical reviews, including in scholarly works, are easily found. I'm away from my normal workspace, so it's inconvenient for me to start article improvement for the next day or two, but I'll happily take this one on. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One more cite book has been added, subject meets WP:NFILM. Sam Sailor 08:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abel Cedeño School Bullying Incident[edit]

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

Current Event Not Completely Documented TheHistoryClub (talk) 09:26, 25 April 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 April 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suspect the event itself passes WP:NCRIME. However, there are also, per my reading, serious WP:NPOV/WP:BLP (and WP:BDP) issues with the article as presently construed.Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's important to note that the "Bullying Incident" was a ~~double~~ homicide. I don't think this meets WP:NCRIME but am not sure enough to !vote. If kept, the article should be renamed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's not a double homicide. I think this article should be merged with the Wildlife assembly wikipedia page. This article was based and only shows it from Abel's Point of view, not that of the survivor or the class witnesses. I don't think this meets WP:NCRIME. If kept, the article should be merged with the wildlife assembly wikipedia page. EternalShadowz (π, ν) 19:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck "double", I mis-interpreted "the stabbing death and assault of two classmates" from a news reference to mean that two classmates were murdered; it actually means one died and the other was assaulted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - review and arguments in AfD says threshold WP:NCRIME just met.BabbaQ (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree that this meets WP:NCRIME. The coverage was entirely short-term and local. The local/region sections of national publications like the New York Times et. al. are still WP:ROUTINE local coverage for notability purposes and the coverage falls squarely within the "breaking news" language of WP:NCRIME. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ghizlan Guenez[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to have attracted sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. I suggest a redirect to The Modist. SmartSE (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing independent notability. Nice work, though, if this helps the fellows who put in the work. -The Gnome (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G5: created by a banned or blocked user. Title also salted. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EXo Platform (software)[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable. References seem to be mentions, press releases, etc and the statement about the United States Joint Forces Command appears to mis-state or overstate what's in the referenced article. This article has been attempted before. At this point, I don't find it's a blatant copyvio as was the case before, but it still seems to be overall promotional. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There does look to be a general issue with sources - either press releases, promotional or mentions (frequently EXo is grouped with a number of others). Tech24 report - has a report which has to be requested (can't do at current location), but if it has done an indepth consideration of each competitor, then that might be a significant source Nosebagbear (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried to remove 'promotional' external links and references. I will work to find more neutral. it will be very helpful for me if you mention what reference/link violate the wikipedia policy.

For the article, i reviewed the whole content (comparing to last versions) in order to respect copyright and have a neutral description. it could be very helpful if you specify which part seems to be promotional. For the US Joint forces, it was the first project for eXo platform and i simply point to a third party reference to give more information about the context. Clubiste.Africain1920 (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 08:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is there anyone that can help me, please! Clubiste.Africain1920 (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wouldn't worry regarding promo - it's notability (or lacking it) that would be the cause of people arguing for delete. You need to find some sources that are a) neutral (industry magazines are viewed as on the edge of neutral - newspapers/books/journal articles are best); b) give more than a mention (anything from a decent size paragraph upwards) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nadine (EP). Randykitty (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Something in Your Bones[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

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

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

These pages do not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Bernadette51 (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect everything to Nadine (EP). Bondegezou (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that a total of three articles are nominated for deletion herein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - standard WP:NOTINHERITED is in place. There are only a couple of sources on the album, from non-reliable sources. I agree with with the triple redirect. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Angry Samoans. Anything worth merging is still available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Trip Records[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability has not been established, as such it fails WP:NCORP. Hasn't been established for 7 years. Deletion probable. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, last discussion was no consensus, so this is still valid. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Angry Samoans.SeraphWiki (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge/Redirect works too... not seeing the sources we like for WP:GNG and I don't see any other notability measure that it could have achieved. Would change my position if it were presented.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolaus Ritt[edit]

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

As for other entries here for Stefan Dollinger, Herbert Schendl, Herbert Koziol, I'm proposing this other non-notable vanity academic page with primary sources written by a user with a clear conflict of interest. These articles should be considered collectively. Polyamorph (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See discussion here. Polyamorph (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete. At least based on English-language sources, I'm not finding sufficient material to satisfy WP:PROF or WP:NBIO. There may be material in other languages, but his field English Historical Linguistics. Cnilep (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. sufficient publication to show ihe is an authority in hisspecialty of Middle English Phonetics; thismeets the basic requirement of WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the person who this article is about, I would not mind at all if it were deleted. Most important reason: everybody will think that I either wrote it myself or asked somebody to write it. I find that rather embarrassing. At least wait till I'm dead, please. ;-) Niki Ritt (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comment and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaong National High School[edit]

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

Unreferenced. HueMan1 (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Underwater Products[edit]

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

No apparent notability. NapoliRoma (talk) 06:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of coverage that is both independent and significant in the article or in searches. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Been relisted twice and there's no consensus forming, just sources of disputed reliability presented, but no real discussion around that either. —SpacemanSpiff 12:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agnijal[edit]

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

No source has founded. Possible Hoax. Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 17:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Not a hoax.See the episodes of the serial over their official online-stream-client.~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-No non-trivial coverage in local/national media.~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is clearly a major production with wide viewership, "Star Jalsha’s upcoming big budget daily ‘Agnijal’ has created quite a buzz in the Bengali TV industry. Although the channel is tight-lipped about the upcoming drama, it is said that it will be an imitation of the hugely popular fantasy drama ‘Game of Thrones’. " [30], see also [31] --Soman (talk) 07:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tellychakkar is not a reliable source by a mile and exists to promote all and any telly-films.The Pratidin stuff is semblant to typica lPR-practices to increase hype about the show and is mostly trivial.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per A3. MT Train^Talk 11:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vigilius of Thapsus[edit]

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

Only content is an external link. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion per CSD A3. @TheSandDoctor: In the future, please use ((db-a3)) instead of AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: My apologies. Not sure why A3 didn't occur to me, normally I do check any potential XfD nominees for a viable CSD tag before nominating at a venue. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Alsalman[edit]

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

Director and producers are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:AUTHOR.. the subject has directed some short movies but none of them have a Wikipedia entry so I don't see their significance. Google Search doesn't produce any substantial information about the person except a self written profile on IMDb so apparently fails GNG as well. For what it's worth, no entry exists on Arabic WP. Saqib (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

there are little known about Saudi Cinema and its pioneers in wikipedia, while the global news are all over it. Please read this articles about this film director https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/saudi-art-days-highlights-potential-saudi-entertainment-industry-1099237 https://destinationksa.com/spotlight-short-saudi-film/ http://www.arabnews.com/node/1278171/saudi-arabia :https://www.villagevoice.com/2018/01/08/the-ramifications-of-saudi-cinemas-opening-their-doors/

Also, This page complement this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_Saudi_Arabia#Saudi_directors — Preceding unsigned comment added by AhmedSaleh7 (talk • contribs) — Note to closing admin: User:AhmedSaleh7 is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

OK. None of the source actually discuss the subject, in detail, but merely name checking and quoting his statement.--Saqib (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as noted, none of the sources either here, in the article or that I could find elsewhere give more than a sentence or two specifically on the subject. WP:AUTHOR would give a fairly vague answer, since his work wouldn't generally be deemed as well-known (film festivals rarely seems to correlate with being well-known, though clearly this may not be the case in Saudi Arabia). WP:ANYBIO "received a well-known and significant award" doesn't seem to grant him access. The source base is so minimal that combined with concerns in the given areas, there's no way he currently meets notability. If anyone can find a non-English source that can be accessed/translated that proves otherwise I'd happily change my vote. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Lanzer[edit]

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

Not a notable doctor. No independent references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is only sourced to his own work. This is a highly advertisement driven field, and there is no sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KJJB[edit]

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

No evidence the station ever broadcasted (and a webforum [32] suggests it never did), and no other references that suggest notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lacking notability and sources. -The Gnome (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia has often seen articles created about radio stations that were outright hoaxes that never existed at all, and/or had a license on paper but never actually made it to air and had their licenses expire unbuilt. So our notability criteria for radio stations don't just require a construction permit alone: they also require that the station actually made it on the air, and that it originates some portion of its own programming in its own studios rather than existing solely as a rebroadcaster of another service, and that all three of those conditions are reliably sourceable as true. A station has to meet all four of those criteria to be granted a presumption of notability, not just one or two of them. But there's no RS coverage here, and that leaves the station's passage of the "made it to air" and "original programming" conditions up in the air as well. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Haig[edit]

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

Not a notable actor; appearing in "small roles on television" does not meet WP:ENT, and the only references are to his own Instagram and to IMDb, which does not meet WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NACTOR, which covers both actors and models. -The Gnome (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one episode appearances in TV shows do not add to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NACTOR. Septrillion (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 11:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roby Das[edit]

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

Notability concerns. The coverage is "human interest" style coverage, and being in the Limca Book of Records doesn't give any inherent notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator's comments. Norcaes (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NASA Martian Bee Plan[edit]

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

This makes for a provocative headline due to the Black Mirror comparisons (and may meet the letter of GNG as a result) but it's one of 25 proposals NASA is evaluating at this time. There's nothing here to be the subject of an encyclopedia article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I started the article because I thought the headline was cool, but I actually don't have much of an opinion one way or the other. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not news. Also fails WP:CRYSTAL. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify 125k and one out of 25 proposals, still in proposal phase, is not notable. Would need a heck of a lot of quality sources covering more than the announcement of the 125k in funding. Draftify in case it becomes notable later. Kees08 (Talk) 08:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons given by all three above. Normally in this case I'd moot draftify, but a) there isn't much there, and most would be superceded by whatever comes out of the proposal (if anything) and b) the creator doesn't sound notably focused on the area (though I grant it is a cool headline). Nosebagbear (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per not crystal ball. Maybe this will eventually become notable, but it isn't now. Natureium (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Piling on at this point, but it's WP:CRYSTAL for the time being as others have said. Things are likely to change if anything ever did go through, so I'd say draftifying isn't needed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. Septrillion (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Deck's National Hockey Card Day[edit]

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

A corporate promotion that doesn't meet WP:GNG. All the coverage I find is promotional. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this purely corporate promotional text about a subject of non-existent notability. Wake us up when it catches fire. -The Gnome (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete event failsWP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Janowitz[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Likely WP:TOOSOON, as her first book was released this year. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty much as Nom says. Searched title of first book and author's name, got only the most routine hits: capsule reviews in PW and Kirkus, short feature in local paper, one signing at a local book festival in an local announcements listing. I wish her luck with her career, but WP is NOTPROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NAUTHOR. -The Gnome (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vecteezy[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. They may resurface. -The Gnome (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens Arrest[edit]

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

Fails WP:N/WP:BAND and WP:V. Article has been unsourced since its creation in 2006 and tagged for sources since 2010. I looked for sources and could only find very trivial coverage of Ted Leo rejoining the band and an interview with Daryl Kahan mostly about his other bands. In short, there does not appear to be significant coverage about this band in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Woodroar (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reminds me of Harlem 6, its a old promo article that has no real claim to fame.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 11:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An attempt to copy a fan-style biography into WP. The band does have some historical interest due to an early member (Ted Leo) who found fame later; the band has a reliable article on this ([33]) but notability is not inherited. Otherwise they have a few blog reviews (e.g. [34], [35]) but knowledge among scenesters does not reach the significant coverage standard. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of lack of source-supported notability. Here's the entire list of references: 1. Official Band Facebook page. 2. Official Wardance Records Facebook page. 3. Coextinction Recordings. More accurately, those are the "External links." The "References" list is empty. They just can't be bothered. -The Gnome (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Septrillion (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Hildenbrand[edit]

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

There's nothing to indicate he's more than a run of the mill journalist. The references are mostly links to his own content, and I can find no coverage of him online. Earning a patent doesn't appear to meet any notability criteria that I can determine. Was PRODed in 2009, otherwise I might have done that here. StarM 01:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Provided third-party neutral sources can be found, and the article made more encyclopedic.TH1980 (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TH1980: - Is that a conditional delete/keep, or do you think it is currently clinging on as its sourcing currently is? Nosebagbear (talk)

Yes, that is a conditional delete/keep.TH1980 (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when you remove all of the sources that pass WP:GNG (not primary or links to articles he's written), there's nothing left. There's a couple other articles that don't establish notability from Climbing magazine in my Before search and not much else. SportingFlyer talk 02:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - currently it doesn't have any sources that aren't either primary, articles written by him, or not neutral bios. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and above comments. -The Gnome (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being a notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and snow?) Theredproject (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Collin[edit]

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

A CV-like page on an unremarkable business executive. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salted as well. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greg J. Marchand[edit]

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

I had nominated this for speedy deletion with the following rationale: Horrific distortion of medicine through the hyping lens of Guinness-World-Record-land. This page as it is written and constructed has no place in an encyclopedia and needs to be rewritten from scratch, as it is completely driven by hype. Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I am the author.) Not sure what the problem is here. I am admittedly a Guinness World Records fan, and I write articles on Guinness World Record holders. I have no relation to the subject. This is a neutral article talking about the subject from a neutral point of view. Whether you feel that Guinness world records are the best thing in the world to happen to medicine or the worst abomination to ever befall medicine, this article does not disagree with you, it just states noteable facts. This was nominated for speedly deletion 10 days ago and stopped by an admin immediately. Again - always open to criticism, I don't see why an article this small can't be fixed if you really feel it's "driven by hype." I say use the edit button, change out the driver and lets make this into a great article. GuinnessFreak (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC) GuinnessFreak has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

The editor who stripped the speedy tag is not an admin.

This page is tabloid, fundamentally unserious, and promotional.

I am finding the claim that this is not paid editing to be less and less persuasive.

User:GuinnessFreak you said that you write articles (plural). What other articles have you created? Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on several articles for noteable guinness holders, but obviously not going to publish any more until I figure out if you're upset with me or my subject. No rationale person would say this article is irredeemably tabloid or promotional. Like anything it can always be improved, but the fact that you keep posting that it can't be fixed and just needs to be deleted shows you must have an interest here. Otherwise you would help make the article better like 5 other users and some admins have. Did my subject harm you or a family member? GuinnessFreak (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is remarkable that the photo was uploaded in conjunction with you creating this page File:Greg_J._Marchand.jpg was uploaded at 03:40, 30 April 2018 and added by you, just today. It is the same picture as the one on his website, and big shocker, Marchand features his guinness world record on his home page too. just like you did here. The no-relation-not-paid-editing case is getting weaker the more i look.

I do understand that you cannot tell the difference between promotional hucksterism and NPOV. That is clear. I will not reply here further; the community will weigh in here. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested the picture from all sources legitimately until I was able to locate one that had the appropriate licensing. Are you saying the picture is promotional? I still don't understand why you just can't improve the article. An admin just made a bunch of changes, why can't you? GuinnessFreak (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've tried to clean up the article. Most of the sources I can find are press releases and the like, so from what I can tell the notability is borderline. Natureium (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what the source for the birth date & birth place is. Another sign on UPE - unsourced personal information. Jytdog (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How was I going to put a source citation in an infobox?^[1] Seriously though, I'll keep defending my work, but this is really in violation of policies now because we don't even have a reason for deletion stated anywhere. Jytdog is not even suggesting that the article fails WP:PROMOTION or WP:NOTABILITY, he's just accusing me of undisclosed COI. It's not appropriate to do that here. You have to make an argument that the article is promotional or not notable, or end the AFD. GuinnessFreak (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Mylife.com is of dubious reliability; I also don't see his birthplace there. The rationale is that notability is marginal and this is clearly under very strong PROMO pressure. Even if we ~could~ make an article, it would need to be redone from scratch. Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Side comment: We add source citations in infoboxes exactly like we do in the rest of the article. You type your fact, you type the <ref>...</ref> tags, and you put your citation information in between the tags. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : No issues with WP: PROMOTIONAL or WP:NOTABILITY here. The user starting this AFD has a history of doing this, literally websites and youtube videos dedicated to his COI investigations. He's usually right but that is irrelevent to the article, which is encyclopedia acceptable. 2603:300A:1600:DD00:F971:43AF:D4EF:15DA (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC) — 2603:300A:1600:DD00:F971:43AF:D4EF:15DA (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Greetings. If you ever decide to make any further contributions to Wikipedia perhaps you could justify your opinion with something more tangible than arbitrary assertions. Just a friendly suggestion. -The Gnome (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Escape Orbit said it best in his April 22, 2018‎ edit "(contains section with criticism, so not completely advertising. Maybe just needs a bit of neutralising)." To be fair a lot of "big name" wikibrarians have edited, and none of those edits have been reverted. I understand Jytdog's MO is to not let go once he/she bites, but this time it's warranted. As usual, I do agree that GuinnessFreak is probably an earthling, and there probably is a COI in him writing about other earthlings. :) Dmonda (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC) — Dmonda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "To be fair a lot of "big name" wikibrarians have edited,", but i haven't edited it yet ..... oh, wait. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or heavily rewrite, based on later responses. ~~Keep: Looks like all of nom's issues have been dealt with(I didn't read the version pre-nom, but looks fine now, at most only slightly promotional, a la "dramatically changed").~~ ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 21:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC) (Note, Tom.Reding changed their !vote in this diff Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

User:Tom.Reding, No they have not. This still wildly over emphasizes his guiness world record stuff. That is Marchand's self-marketing schtick and nothing to do with what we do here in WP. The article is promotional for Marchand, following his own PR, from the ground up. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Example - the following is unsupported by its source:

The "Marchand Salpingectomy" surgical technique was developed by Marchand shortly after the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology released Committee Opinion #620.^[2]

References

^ "My life - Statistical Data". My Life. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
^ "Committee Opinion #620: Salpingectomy for Ovarian Cancer Prevention". American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Committee on Gynecologic Practice. January 2015. Retrieved 12 April 2018.

The page is full of pure bullshit like this. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the first citation. It is a god damn conference presentation with a hyped up title (ref ":0") (fails MEDRS by miles) and Marchand claims in the section following the sentence quoted above, through what is increasingly obviously his paid editor, that this technique radically changed medical practice. Disgusting unsourced industrial waste dumped into WP. Please read carefully before !voting. This is not a WP page, it is a marketing brochure that is utterly unencyclopedic.Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a paid Editor, although with how angry you are getting I am worried that you have an interest in this some way. I admit that was crapy citing but when the 2: events happen after each other and have the same words in their title it seem reasonable to say shortly after that . Why don't we work on these issues together on the pages talk page and make it into a really great Page?GuinnessFreak (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This does not belong in main space. If you would agree to draftify it and put it through AfC so the horrifically promotional content can be hosed out of it, the copyright issues with the image clarified, and the content checked to make sure it actually is supported by reliable sources, that would be fine. This needs to get the hell out of mainspace. Would you consent to this being moved to draft space? Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ [Edit: Changed suggestion to] Delete & Salt this strongly promotional text about a subject lacking independent notability. This is about an associate professor (not even a full professor) who's been criticized for reckless surgical techniques - yet cannot even achieve notoriety/notability on these dubious grounds. The posed image and the oversourcing (hurrah for the "longest ever uterus"!) simply adds to the hideous ambiance. This is not an encyclopaedic article; it's a brochure. Too soon for a claim to fame. -The Gnome (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome Thank you for your honest Criticism. I do want to point out that someone who is not a full time professor at a school cannot be a Full tenured professor. Even the most famous surgeon in the country would still be an associate professor if they just taught part time. My subject is a full time surgeon. He's also not a very good guy by most of what I've read. A lot of people think his surgeries can spread cancer and kill people. I thought I was reaching notability based on how widely cited he is in national news media as well as his notoriety for spreading cancer through morcellation. I figured it met notability based on the outrage over his morcellation. I've even seen him on TV myself. I was not trying to meet notability as an academic. But again thank you for your input and I'm always trying to make my articles better. GuinnessFreak (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point about not being a full professor if they are a full time clinician is untrue. The faculty of medical schools follow the typical advancement while doing research/teaching/clinical duties. Natureium (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting this?? you cant be a full professor unless you work for the university. if Ben Carson takes a Harvard student for a semester he can only be an associate professor unless Harvard hires him. you cant claim people that don't work for you are full professors. no university does this. GuinnessFreak (talk) 06:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care at all (we should not care at all) about the subject's "intentions" or "behavior," GuinnessFreak. He's a doctor of medicine; it's an honorable profession. But it does not matter. Even serial killers merit an article provided they are notable enough. My input was based strictly on independent-notability evidence. It seems to be lacking. The strong aroma of promotional verbiage only adds to the ambiance; it does not create it. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject clearly does not pass general notability guidelines, quite apart from the discussion in WP:COIN and the apparent copyvio over the photograph. At first glance it looks like a promotional article, but then seems to turn into an attack article. Well-sourced citations about a specific medical procedure may be appropriate on the entry about that procedure. Shritwod (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I went looking for independent sources; see here for what i found. I then trimmed all the horrible refs and puffery and was left with this. I then self-reverted to restore it. There is a boatload of hype driven Marchand's press releases; almost no truly independent sources discussing him. he has two papers published, both in the same very specifialist journal that has an impact factor of 1.3 over the past five years. Above I said "marginally notable". I strengthen that now to "not notable". He fails WP:PROF by miles and even WP:BIO. You have to cut through a lot of PR to see what is really there. Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really liked the article you found and quoted from the local AZ paper. i was sticking to national news so I missed it. I think that should be a big part of the article. This guy was on every channel with his "oh feel bad for me I had cancer story about the world record." it worked, it was everywhere and still is. there's no way to make that ever not noteable. I think between my version and yours there's a good article. but you cant delete a nationally syndicated news story that played on almost every channel and a us medical school curriculum that mentions him. that's what made this villain noteable. GuinnessFreak (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps that you misunderstand the purpose of the encyclopaedia. If you want to run an exposé on someone, this is not the place to do it. You are not demonstrating the neutral point of view required, and it looks like you have an axe to grind. That apart, I still do not believe that the references constitute a significant enough coverage to meet notability guidelines. Shritwod (talk) 06:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shritwod in my view the "villain" stuff is just speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. GF is very committed to Marchand having a page in WP and is saying what ever he/she thinks we want to hear. IF we strip out all the promotional crap that GF dumped into WP there is nothing left, really. The foundation of this page is promotion; that is its very clear purpose. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we disagree on what we think the intention is, but the conclusion is the same either way. Shritwod (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GF you are again misrepresenting. The references you piled up in the LEAD were either his own very self-promotional video presentations or multiple versions of the same churnalism story in very local media affiliates driven by his press release. I have found no national coverage of this person. it is all local -- mostly AZ (where he is) or Chicago (where one of his co-surgeons is. Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of reliable medical sources in a medical article, promotional (so fails WP:NOT). At some point WP:PAYTALK should kick in. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 10:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is promotional and shouldn't be for a medical professional. scope_creep (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So far, I'm counting two kamikaze accounts shouting "Keep." It never pays off, this underhanded approach, folks. Don't we all know this by now? -The Gnome (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Went up to three just now. What mane. -The Gnome (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...And it turns out they were socks. Who would've thought? :-) Scalpel, please! -The Gnome (talk) 09:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a reciter of anybody's world record surgical oddities. Other than those there doesn't seem to be much BLP material to go with here. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep strong and by definition. Is it possible your search engines can't find this stuff because you're doing it from England? In the US this reckless morcellating idiot has articles all over the national news about him. Maybe you can try switching to the US version of google news? a few examples:

1.) ABC in San Antonio, Texas - Running this BS story nationally that runs all over the US.

2.) NBC in South Bend, Indiana - Running the same nationally syndicated story about him. Same words from the reporter tell you the story is nationally syndicated.

3.) ABC in Fresno, California - Running the same nationally syndicated story about him. Same words from the reporter tell you the story is nationally syndicated.

4.) CBS in Marquette, Wisconsin - Running the same nationally syndicated story about him. Same words from the reporter tell you the story is nationally syndicated.

There's about 9 more if you dig deeper.

When you've got a nationally televised story, not mentioning this idiot, but actually ABOUT this dangerous idiot, you've met WP:SIGCOV everytime. I would like permission to revert to Jytdog's masterful edit removing the promotionalism. There is no reason for 10 million sources. The article with 4 citations looks deliciously sharp. Surgical lion (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Surgical lion has made few or no other edits outside this topic.)

Those are just additional instances of churnalism driven by Marchand's press releases. WP:GNG is not met when looking for actually independent sources; the page is fundamentally promotional. Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with the canine verdict, as above. -The Gnome (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jytdog's rationale which put my thoughts into words more eloquently than I ever could. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's no way this can fail WP:GNG. If you read WP:GNG it plainly says:""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." Individual ABC, NBC and CBS stations all over the nation ran the story. Are we suggesting they were paid? This is how syndicated stories work in the US. If you want to delete the article, go ahead, but these sources meet the very definition of WP:GNG:

1.) ABC in San Antonio, Texas - Running this BS story nationally that runs all over the US.

2.) | NBC in South Bend, Indiana - Running the same nationally syndicated story about him. Same words from the reporter tell you the story is nationally syndicated.

3.) ABC in Fresno, California - Running the same nationally syndicated story about him. Same words from the reporter tell you the story is nationally syndicated.

4.) CBS in Marquette, Wisconsin - Running the same nationally syndicated story about him. Same words from the reporter tell you the story is nationally syndicated.

5.) Tribune TV 8 in Moline Illinois

Unless the subject owns or paid these stations, (which is impossible,) you've got a story airing all over TV in the USA. WP:GNG by definition. Anyone looking back at this deletion log is instantly going to realize he meets WP:GNG, (despite churnalism being a fancy word.) the only issue is promotionalism. 4.15.15.126 (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC) — 4.15.15.126 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please login when you comment. It is clear you are the same as one or more of the similarly commenting notes above. I don't think you understand what we mean by "independent" in the GNG. The same story run by many affilates are not independent of one another, and when they are all just "reporting" a press release they are not independent of the subject, either. Churnalism refers to the latter. Wikipedia cannot be manipulated in this way. Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what WP:GNG says. It says they have to be independent from the Subject, not independent from each other. Most stories you see on the news will come from the same Associated Press press releases no matter where you are in the United States.GuinnessFreak (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Any reasonable group of people (if it comes to admins) who read that paragraph in WP:GNG, and then read the above 4 sources are going to agree 99.999% of the time that the subject meets criteria. Per the wording of WP:GNG, it does. Churnalism is an interesting concept, which I think should be added to future versions of WP:GNG, but as of now it's not referenced there at all. If we call a false consensus on deletion, admins will eventually read this script and over-rule it. JYTdog wrote an excellent, non-promotional version of this page [here]. I recommend we revert to that and conclude this discussion. So I am changing my vote to "keep" the [new version ] written by JYTdog. Dmonda (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GNG says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

If you click on the link "independent" to see what the community means by that word, and go to the section on press releases, you will see that it says there Many less reputable news sources will write an article based almost exclusively on a press release, making only minor modifications. When using news sources whose editorial integrity you are uncertain of, and an article reads like a press release, it is crucial to check to see that the source is not simply recycling a press release. Sometimes, but not always, it is possible to locate the original press release used to generate the article.

That is exactly what is going on with these affiliates recycling the press release. This is what churnalism is.

Wikipedia cannot be manipulated by this kind of crap. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ABSOLUTELY NOT! That section of WP-INDY has NOTHING to do with news stories given by reporters, unless they are actively reading a press release. That section is talking about how to identify press release in media disguised as a story. Even if you were trying to make the argument that these news stories were based on a press release, (which is impossible because they are real reporter interviews, not articles) thats even more irrelevant, because YOU KNOW FOR A FACT these 14 news stories did not come from a press release, they came from national reporter. The original story was produced by Wendy Chioji of Ivanhoe Media (they do a lot of the medical interest national stories for CBS, NBC, ABC. Her original story is easy to find] so I suspect you already knew this. It's a real national story shared with many legitimate CBS, NBC, and ABC affiliate stations.

Also, can I point out -

1.) Even if there was some truth to your argument (which as I pointed out above there isn't,) the idea that admitting that a logical person reading WP:GNG who (knows what the word independent means) might find this subject to be notable, "but then" someone who did "further research" and read other WP guidelines might decide otherwise is not a very sound argument. Wikipedia guideline articles are not so sloppily written as to give that wide of contradicting information to readers.

2.) Even if the above were not obvious grounds for notability (which they are,) coming in the context of a genuinely awarded Guinness world record (very often notable alone,) national coverage from the Guinness record, the fact that the subject has verifiable publications featured in the published curriculum of US medical schools, and that his publications are known enough to be infrequently cited, I think you would have to agree that most admins here would just say "hey close enough." But hey - you're a fighter, I'll give that to you.

3.) I honestly think if you lived in America you would just recognize the guy from TV or newspaper and not go down this road at all.

So are you still going to keep this up Jytdog? Or can we finally just publish that beautiful page you put together here? Come on! Dmonda (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That side swiping digression into an ad hominem only weakens your arguments, Dmonda. -The Gnome (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologize if that came off as too pointy. Not my intention. Obviously I feel very strongly about my argument based on the definitions defined in WP-GNG and the criteria of WP-INDY section 5.1. Dmonda (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I have struck the votes of three confirmed socks. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Perhaps you should strike off the rest of the socks' commentary as well. -The Gnome (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per WP:G5; I knew I was being bullshitted. Sock of User:Dmonda. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This was tagged for speedy for being created by socks, then removed as there were substantial subsequent edits by others. I am fine with the AfD going though and being closed; this is actually a stronger outcome that we can use to overcome future efforts to create. I want to add that due to the obvious and intense promotional pressure, the page should be salted after it is deleted. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The stripped-down version still contains two sources that are entirely about other people. Ignoring those, we only have one good source, the Alltucker Arizona Republic newspaper story alleging professional misconduct. That's not enough. And even if we kept an article, the sock party here makes clear that it will be very difficult to maintain it in a properly neutral state. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note about Ivanhoe, the source of the syndicated stories mentioned above. See This 2009 piece at HealthNewsReview.org which is their most substantial discussion of that company. Withering. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt One good source is not enough to go on. ("Record-breaking uterus" is a pretty good headline, though, so I'm glad it was brought to my attention.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people are watching this and it is setting a little bit of a dangerous precedent. Jytdog is admitting that it meets WP:GNG, but we are still going to delete for failing WP:PROMOTIONAL, rather than fixing the page. Ivanhoe may have gotten bad press in the past but it's a long way from his press release failing WP:INDY. I'm not saying anyone is owed a "Sock-pology" but the bullying that occurred would certainly dissuade good writers from contributing to wikipedia. Phoenix Mike22 (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)— Phoenix Mike22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And whose sock drawer do you belong in? Natureium (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, see here where after hosing out all the crappy sources I wrote that it is very clear this fails GNG, as others have articulated as well. Marginal N + strong PROMO is also a valid deletion rationale. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the link provided by Jytdog above, we read: "Ivanhoe...allows local reporters to put their names on stories they didn’t report, film or write — without mentioning Ivanhoe. Stations also are permitted to omit geographical information, giving viewers the false impression that the stories were locally produced and the patients and doctors quoted in the stories could be their neighbors. ... More power to entrepreneurs like Ivanhoe who make money (actually a lot of money) doing this. That’s a business decision. Shame on the stations that take this “quick and dirty” route to health news coverage. That’s a journalism ethics decision." 'Nuff said. -The Gnome (talk) 09:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh air at last! The stink of his socks caused Phoenix Mike22 to be thrown out from Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt I assume some paid editor will have an unhappy client. But our encyclopedia will than contain less non notable advertising. Also one could delete this based on G5 as it is nearly certainly the work of socks of a prior blocked account. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tried. Someone declined the speedy. Natureium (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This will be more permanent and will get it salted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning precisely :) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 10:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Hopefully stop it being recreated 4 or 14 months up the road. scope_creep (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sal Torres[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and GNG nothing.found in a before search of any interest Dom from Paris (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Daly City isn't small, but it's not large enough for automatic notability for a mayor. There's a lot unsourced in this article as well that would be very difficult to find verifiable independent sourcing for, which slightly surprises me. Doesn't pass WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 03:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The real killer here isn't so much Daly City's population, as the fact that its mayors are not directly elected by the voting public — this is one of those "council-manager" cities where the councillors select the mayor among themselves on a rotation, so that practically everybody on council gets a turn. That type of mayor does not get an automatic presumption of notability regardless of the city's population, but is considered notable only if he or she can be shown as the subject of significantly more than just a smattering of purely local coverage — which means that the sourcing here isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion have been set forth since article improvement. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Bernardi[edit]

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

The article seems to be about some random non-notable artist written in the style of a resume, thus failing WP:NOTE due to WP:SPIP and WP:SOAP. Thus, it should be deleted. User:Kerl126 (talk) (contributions) 02:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep We have no way of knowing that the article is penned by its subject. So, unless the nominator knows something we don't, WP:SPIP does not apply. The listed solo and group exhibitions, though, let's just say surpass in number those listed in the article about Picasso, which shows the promotional nature of the material. The subject's notability is the foundational question; there are enough sources supporting it. (Note the atrocious style of sourcing in the article, a sign of slapdash, cavalierly lazy editing. I'm this close to change my vote on the sourcing alone, but I shouldn't). -The Gnome (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has been improved. Regarding the perplexities about the neutrality of this article I do agree with The Gnome about the way the solo and group exhibitions were presented, but I do not agree that the artist is "non notable". I do not think that you can be invited to dozens of public museum exhibitions of such importance by chance if you were not known by the many art curators of these museum shows. Having corrected some irrelevant sources on the article I noticed online that CNN Style and The New York Times both featured the last museum show held at the Parrish Museum.Silvanpirri46 (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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