The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missoni Baia[edit]

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

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

An article on an under-construction apartment building, neither WP:GEOFEAT nor WP:GNG is met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• What about the coverage in reliable independemt sources? Doesn't it pass the general notabiloty guidelines? FloridaArmy (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Borderline promotional to boot. Deb (talk) 12:19, 26 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. – Joe (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Probasco[edit]

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

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

There doesn't appear to be significant coverage in reliable sources. --Michael White^T·C 23:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm open to merging some or all of it to the article Henry Probasco House. (That said, on looking at it again, the German article implies much more can be said of him.)--T. Anthony (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Historically notable figure in Cincinnati and Ohio. There is a lot of historical information about the man and likely much more can be found. In just a short time I found historical information: Cincinnati.com, Cincinnatimagazine.com, Beardbarons.com, 1899 auction of items belonging to Henry Probasco, and one from the University of Cincinnati library. The Newberry Library in Cincinnati houses a large collection of Arabic and Turkish Manuscripts that came from the collections belonging to Henry Probasco. Otr500 (talk) 07:35, 25 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew G. C. Sage[edit]

Andrew G. C. Sage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Only substantive coverage from a RS is from Barbarians at the Gate: The Fall of RJR Nabisco. Other RS coverage is fleeting and thus does not establish notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 18 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Behzad Qasemi[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)).

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

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

Non-notable hacker/programmer. Doesn't meet WP:BIO or GNG. Vermont (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Editor-1 (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable hacker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article extenal links are the source of it. The links are from Iran's important newspaper. About him in iran he is a famous man. And there were articles about him but was lie so I decided to write the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookernight (talk • contribs) 23:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC) — Bookernight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep its truth in my country — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightwoorlding (talk • contribs) 12:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC) — Lightwoorlding (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete per nom. No evidence of notabilty. 10^Eleventeen 22:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stylianos Atteshlis[edit]

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

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

Tagged as being unsourced for six years, and still unsourced. My own searching only turned up non-WP:RS sources. Not included in this nomination, but linked for reference, is Draft:Researchers of Truth. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. If someone disagrees they are welcome to find the sources that noone could find in the past six years. Good luck! Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per R Roy Smith's comment on Thursday24 May 2018 regarding the researchers of truth sandbox submission and suggested edits on I have added WP:RS cites and links on the Stylianos Atteshlis page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stylianos_Atteshlis for your consideration as requested. These are references to Dr. Stylianos Atteshlis (aka Daskalos) on the Oprah.com web site and in Oprah Winfrey's O Magazine and the Common Ground Magazine included below

Spiritual Energy article about Daskalos (Dr. Stylianos Atteshlis) by Mark Matousek in the July 2003 issue of Oprah Winfrey's O magazine. This past issue is not online but is on http://www.researchersoftruth.org/daskalos_researchers_of_truth_system-htm/written-accounts in its entirety including the magazine's cover showing the name of the article (Spiritual Energy) on the cover.

How to Radiate Positive Energy: Spiritual Energy article Daskalos (Dr. Stylianos Atteshlis) on Oprah.com see http://www.oprah.com/spirit/how-to-radiate-positive-energy-spiritual-energy

The Teaching Common Ground Magazine article about Daskalos (Dr. Stylianos Atteshlis) by Mark Matousek see http://www.commongroundmag.com/back-issues.html This artice is also located at http://www.researchersoftruth.org/the-teaching

A Cyprus newspaper article on his obituary OBITUARY The Cyprus Weekly, September 1 – 7, 1995 is reproduced here * OBITUARY The Cyprus Weekly, September 1 – 7, 1995

Are these 3rd party source citations, Please do not delete this article

Let me know if you need anything else

thank you for your consideration

Daniel Anukpaba (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC) — Anukpaba (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete no evidence of notability. 10^Eleventeen 23:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attack of Life: The Bang Tango Movie[edit]

Attack of Life: The Bang Tango Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I dug through all the references (there are plenty) and nearly all of them point to unreliable blogs. The one exception is to an LA Weekly write up where the subject (this documentary) is mentioned in passing, exactly once and the article is quite obvious;y not about about the movie, making it not in-depth coverage. For these reasons, and with my preliminary news search, this seems to fall short of WP:FILM. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have added more references. Hopefully this will help. Thatguy1987 (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although the film never had an official release, it had garnered enough attention to still be reviewed and written about positively on many respectable music websites such as Blabbermouth, Metal Sludge, Bravewords, Sleazeroxx, KNAC, etc. which I have added more references for. Plus the story around the making of the film was interesting enough for the filmmaker to be interviewed on many of these sites as well. Also the coverage the film has recieved dates back to 2012(Blabbermouth reference) and is as recent as May 2018(Rock out with your Doc Out reference); for a film that has never been given an official release, that showcases notability in my opinion. Thatguy1987 (talk) 12:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)i[reply]

• Keep. The references may be good enough now, but perhaps add a tag to seek more references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.scaringi (talk • contribs) 18:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article has been significantly improved since coming to AFD with the addition of multiple reliable sources with direct and significant coverage so it passes WP:GNG, thanks 20:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• Keep On the basis of the article in its current form, the film seems to meet the GNG, even if it might be on the edge of WP:NFILM. Chetsford (talk) 18:15, 31 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. – Joe (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bel'ange Epako[edit]

Bel'ange Epako (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY --BlameRuiner (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although sad he died so young sadly there really isn't enough here to satisfy WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY and I'm not seeing anything to meet WP:GNG either. Smartyllama (talk) 16:38, 31 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) 14:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Kai-Hwa Wang[edit]

Frances Kai-Hwa Wang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability concerns. The references here don't suggest GNG is met, and on Google search I merely find articles she has written. Based on the longer bio at her website, I don't believe either WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF is met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subject has over 50 awards, distinctions and is a published reporter with NBC. Notability includes: Michigan Historical Society State History Award for Best Article in Michigan History Magazine, "Vincent Chin: A Catalyst for the Asian-American Civil Rights Movement," 2017, Education Writers Assn. National Seminar fellowship, "A New Era for Education and the Press," Washington DC, 2017, Education Writers Association and Poynter fellowship, “Separate -- And Still Unequal,” Poynter, 2017, Columbia Univ Grad School of Journalism Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma Midwest Reporting Institute fellowship on Gun Violence, 2017, Education Writers Association fellowship,Univ of Penn School of Education, 2017, Michigan State University Asian Pacific American Heritage Month Keynote Speaker, 2016, Asian Pacific American Medical Students Association (APAMSA) Conf. Keynote Speaker, 2016, Clague Middle School Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day Keynote Speaker, 2016, University of Michigan Law School Korematsu Day speaker, 2017, 2016, 2014, Association of Opinion Journalists (AOJ) and Poynter Institute Minority Writers Seminar Fellowship, 2015, National Association of Science Writers Diversity Fellowship, 2015, University of Michigan A/PIA High School Conference Keynote Speaker, 2013, Purdue ImaginAsian Identity and Experience in Contemporary Asian Pacific America Art Exhibition, “The Dinner Party,” prose poetry and multimedia artwork, Purdue, Indiana; also Conf. Keynote Speaker; 2010, New America Media Ethnic Media Expo & Awards Fellowship, Atlanta, 2009. and Nominated for Michigan Governor's Advisory Council on Asian Pacific American Affairs, 2009 and distinctions that go back to 1988/1991, although her most serious recognition began around 2006. Strongly feel WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF is met. Thaoworra (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete That huge wall of text makes it hard for me to deal with and some/most of it proves nothing (I'm nowhere close to notable and I can say I've been a Middle School keynote speaker and been a paid contributor to a 2 major US city newspapers' websites). Looking at WP:NPROF I think she clearly doesn't meet criterias 2-3 or 4-9. I don't think 1 is met because no secondary sources and keynotes don't prove 4. For WP:NAUTHOR I think her best claim is 1 and again see no sourcing. This subject seems to be good at promotion and so while not notable now would not be surprised if she becomes notable in the future. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because there are no secondary sources at all and because none of the mentioned awards (is being a keynote speaker an award? is being nominated for a prize an award?) seems to grant notability. Unless she is the winner of an international or at least national prize awarded by a prestigious institution and the event generated sufficient media coverage, I think there is no notability here. Nevertheless, I encourage the editors to make a good search and try to save the article. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@G.scaringi: One this page was first created (full of copyright issues) and again when it was nominated here I spent some time exploring notability. Others might find more/different things than I did but I did make a good faith search. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete none of the awards are of the type that give notability. No sign she is at all a notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:16, 25 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) 15:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Year-End Adult Pop Songs of 1996[edit]

Billboard Year-End Adult Pop Songs of 1996 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. There are no independent sources cited on this article, and even if they exist, this is excessive data with no clear encyclopedic value. Articles have been created for every year from 1996 to 2017 on this topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• procedural note: if someone has a script to add the other 21 pages, please do; otherwise I'll add them myself if there is support for deletion, followed by an early re-list to ensure 7 days of discussion power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the other articles for deletion per the nomination below this note. Polyamorph (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Year-End Adult Pop Songs of 1997 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Billboard Year-End Adult Pop Songs of 1998 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Billboard Year-End Adult Pop Songs of 1999 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Billboard Year-End Adult Pop Songs of 2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Billboard Year-End Adult Pop Songs of 2001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Billboard Year-End Adult Pop Songs of 2002 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Billboard Year-End Adult Pop Songs of 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Billboard Year-End Adult Pop Songs of 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Billboard Year-End Adult Pop Songs of 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Billboard Year-End Adult Pop Songs of 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Billboard Year-End Adult Pop Songs of 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Billboard Year-End Adult Pop Songs of 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Billboard Year-End Adult Pop Songs of 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Billboard Year-End Adult Pop Songs of 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Billboard Year-End Adult Pop Songs of 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Billboard Year-End Adult Pop Songs of 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Billboard Year-End Adult Pop Songs of 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Billboard Year-End Adult Pop Songs of 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Billboard Year-End Adult Pop Songs of 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Billboard Year-End Adult Pop Songs of 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Billboard Year-End Adult Pop Songs of 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete per nomination. The other articles should also be deleted. Polyamorph (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all: Non-notable with only one source on the article and one source available. Otr500 (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. The only place you were ever find these lists is the year-end issues of Billboard and, as this is just for a secondary chart, you will not find these even referenced anywhere else. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:33, 30 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. I shall apply the Wikipedia:Snowball clause; the nominator obviously has this very wrong and their talk page is littered with notices that show a problem with understanding notability. Schwede66 09:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Moorfield[edit]

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

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

Is this article really important? SB Shuvo 20:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? Have you read WP:NOTABILITY? John Moorfield was a professor of Māori language. He created the Māori–English dictionary. The page has been reviewed by Snickers2686 (talk · contribs) - ask them. Tayste (edits) 20:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Clearly passes WP:NACADEMIC both from 1, The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline and 2, The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. The page is getting built so I'm sure more will be added soon but no reason for the deletion. NZFC^(talk) 21:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:NACADEMIC point 1, as given by NZFC above. Not sure if the QSO is sufficient for point 2.-gadfium 23:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. Notable, highly regarded academic who passes the notability requirements for such. Grutness...wha? 00:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep definitely meets GNG, received academic awards and honours and made significant contributions to his field. MurielMary (talk) 06:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Easily passes notability requirements, and has been rated mid-importance on both WikiProject New Zealand and by the Māori task force. Paora (talk) 08:54, 25 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 RuPaul's Drag Race (season 10). (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blair St. Clair[edit]

Blair St. Clair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is lots of coverage of St. Clair in RS however it all relates to their participation on RuPaul's Drag Race. Article makes claims to notability for WP:ENT and WP:MUSICBIO. Miss Gay Indiana does not seem to qualify for ANYBIO. Seems to clearly not meet MUSICBIO. Think the best case can be made for WP:ENT but given overlap of coverage with Drag Race, is currently WP:1E and so should redirect to season 10 of the show. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please do not delete and just redirect this article back to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 10) if there is consensus that Blair St. Clair does not yet qualify for a standalone article. The redirect page clearly serves a purpose. 19:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Believer (talk • contribs)
  • "Shantay, you stay" in the form of a redirect, please. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 10). As always, people do not qualify for articles just for competing in reality shows they didn't win — while a non-winner can still go on to build notability for other reasons after the show, such as by clearing WP:NMUSIC as a musician or by touring her kitty off afterward and getting GNG-worthy coverage for that, the winner of the season is the only person who gets to have "was on a reality show" be the grounds for inclusion in and of itself. And the WP:BLP1E coverage that the person gets in the context of being on the reality show does not constitute an instant WP:GNG pass either, because every contestant always gets that so there would no longer be any such thing as a non-notable reality show contestant anymore. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when Blair St. Clair (I do declare!) has a stronger notability claim, but just being on a reality show for a few weeks and then sashaying away does not constitute permanent encyclopedic notability in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do declare! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to RPDR10, just not enough yet. Wouldn't be that surprised to see that the queen meeting notability in 10 years, but not today, as far as I can tell.Naraht (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Season 10. She just isn't famous enough on her own to merit having her own page when queens still on the current season don't have their own page, not even bringing up the topic of contestants from previous seasons not having their own pages either. Charlie950 03:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie950 (talk • contribs)
• Redirect to season 10. While I loved Blair (St. Clair, I do declare), she just doesn't have enough notability to have her own page. Hopefully we'll see more of her in the coming years though.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 06:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to season 10 per Barkeep49. Meters (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for now. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:02, 31 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. copyvio from http://www.greenfrsh.com/vegetables-for-kids/ — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit and vegetables for children[edit]

Fruit and vegetables for children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is basically a how-to guide about childhood nutrition. I'm not sure what kind of encyclopedic content would fit the title "fruit and vegetables for children". Plantdrew (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC) Plantdrew (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - Wikipedia is not Wikihow or a tutorial website. The article also looks like an advertisement you'd find on a health website. 344917661X (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - This is not an encyclopedic article; it basically is a how-to guide that verges on being a promotional piece.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - per above. --Quek157 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is an essay. Alternatively, merge to Michelle Obama. Natureium (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is not encyclopedic. It looks like an essay perhaps good for a personal blog post. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, with commiserations to the article creator, who I presume spent some effort on this. Kingoflettuce (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

some lettuce?Quek157 (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: copyvio of [1], tagged accordingly. (How could you miss that, guys?) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:47, 29 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.there are so many lists which momentarily caused confusion. Carbon can be in many forms, diamond,buckminsterfullerene or graphite. under the onslaught of many graphite lists, inadvertly I mistakenly nominated this diamond(standard article) SKCRIT#1. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Quek157 (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of English football transfers summer 2018[edit]

List of English football transfers summer 2018 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:LISTCRUFT/WP:FANCRUFT/OR/SYNTH/LISTN. Yet another per preceedence of all Quek157 (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We have List of English football transfers summer 2017 so this article seems perfectly valid to me, although it needs a cleanup I am sure it will pass WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - standard article. GiantSnowman 07:25, 25 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. – Joe (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philips Entertaible[edit]

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

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

This does not appear to meet the General Notability Guideline as all coverage I can find appears to be based on press releases. I've not actually been able to find any evidence that this product ever passed the prototype stage, therefore there can be no sustained coverage of it that isn't based on its announcement at 2006's Consumer Electronics Show. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm seeing the same lack of sources but I did find a publisher paper based on the technology for ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. The technology looks interesting and it seems like something that was ahead of its time along with board games (or even tablets?). Maybe if not an article, this could be incorporated into a similar article? – TheGridExe (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that paper and immediately discarded it because it was written by Philips staff. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it still didn't seem like it was written for a marketing perspective. The paper discloses from the start that the people writing it are part of Philips. The paper also has its own sources at the end as well. – TheGridExe (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that it's not an independent source, so it doesn't meet Wikipedia's GNG requirement. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One can argue that scientific papers have some level of oversight from the editor which makes them sort-of, kind-of independent, even if not fully. But that argument is extremely weak in the case of conference papers (even for reputable and selective conferences, the editor will review the appropriateness of the paper, but not request changes to it, so oversight is minimal). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's understandable then. I will be ok with a delete per nom. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:47, 29 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 merge to List of Sliders characters. A Train^talk 08:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn Mallory[edit]

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

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

Also including the other Sliders cast articles:

• Quinn Mallory
• Wade Welles
• Rembrandt Brown
• Maximillian Arturo
• Maggie Beckett
• Colin Mallory
• Mallory (Sliders)
• Recurring characters of Sliders

These are, virtually without exception, crufty articles created many years ago when we were rather less strict about referencing. There are no references in any of these articles, and all are written in a very in-universe way. — 🦊 07:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:GNG and in the case of the last one, WP:TNT. A character list article might be viable, but only if it was rewritten with proper sourcing._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all into and rename List of Sliders cast members to List of Sliders characters. Agree that the individual pages are crufty and not notable but they are possible search terms. A single page with all characters is a reasonable outcome, don't neen separate pages for cast and characters. --J04n(talk page) 18:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into retrospective article that lists the characters. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into retrospective article that lists the characters as suggested above. Aoba47 (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @TheGridExe, J04n, and Aoba47: For what it's worth, I oppose merging these into any other articles unless reliable, independent sources can be found. — 🦊 04:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge content. There are a few references in the articles. The book Sliders: The Episode Guide : the Classic Episodes alone probably supports about half of the content. There are also many refs in Sliders. I can look for more. StrayBolt (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Azerbaijan football transfers summer 2018[edit]

List of Azerbaijan football transfers summer 2018 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Do we really need this??? Not much references, WP:LISTCRUFT/WP:FANCRUFT/SYNTH or whatsoever. Per preceedence of all the transfer lists Quek157 (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:LISTN and WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the requisite Azerbaijan Premier League article. SportingFlyer talk 05:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 07:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:17, 29 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 Replace with Warpstone (magazine). And merge content from history as may be deemed appropriate. Sandstein 08:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warpstone[edit]

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

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

Purely fancruft description of a fictional material, no indication that it is independently notable or passes WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I would merge the key details to Warpstone (magazine), which gets its name from the fictional substance, and move that page to this title. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: I think ZXCVBNM is right with the general idea. If not already there, then both the overall Warpstone article needs some of this content, as well as the Mordheim/Mordheim: City of the Damned article Nosebagbear (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 25 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)} 15:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Whitbeck[edit]

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

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

Runs afoul of both WP:GNG and WP:V. Of the sources cited:

1. Trivial mention per WP:SIGCOV. The subject is mentioned twice in a 240 page book, and in both instances occupies no more than a passing mention.
2. Can't tell what this. Possibly some sort of Who's Who.
3. Published by the subject
4. Published by the subject
5. Doesn't exist? A google search returns only this article
6. Doesn't exist? A google search returns only this article
7. Published by the subject
8. Doesn't exist? A google search returns only this article
9. Published by the subject
10. Dead link to some sort of case law page, not a real source as anyone with legal issues would have public court documents
11. Amazon link
12. Dead link to a domain that doesn't exist
13. Dead link to a domain that doesn't exist

So, in summary, the subject does not appear to be notable and the statements made in this article are not verifiable. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no where near meeting notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JPL above.GreyShark (dibra) 11:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nonnotable activist political writer who has written op-eds and a self-published book, but I cannot find that he has held a noteworthy job, published notable work, or drawn press coverage of his writing, life, or career.10:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 15:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sirius Minnesota[edit]

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

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

Non-notable local rec bandy team that fails to meet WP:GNG. DJSasso (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. We should at least be able to find out if it still exists, but ... Smallbones_(smalltalk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Senthil Nathan[edit]

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

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

This was already deleted once at AfD. Recreated and tagged CSD, the A7 was declined because the article makes claims of notability. However, the sources are all either primary, promotional, or simple faculty listings. WP:BEFORE shows the only in-depth article about him to be the current Wikipedia one - and we are not WP:RS. The actual claims to notability are not substantiated. Not to be confused with many other people of the same name. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. I searched but cannot glimpse where he meets WP:NACADEMIC. -The Gnome (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Don't have time to investigate this properly right now, but if you search Google Scholar with Senthil Nathan & PROBOT or Senthil Nathan & John Wickham, there are lots of reliable independent review articles that Nathan performed the first-ever robotic surgery using PROBOT. Unfortunately few are free to read; one that is states: "The idea of RSS, or technologies that use robotic systems to aid in surgical procedures on-site, have been around for over three decades. In 1992, Dr. Senthil Nathan of Guy’s and St. Thomas hospital in London successfully carried out the first robotic surgical procedure (prostatectomy) in the world, using ‘Probot’, developed at Imperial College London." [2] There is also this Independent article [3] which states Nathan was involved in the development of the robot. Academics don't need in-depth articles about their life, but rather reviews of their work. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Details of Nathan's involvement in the project from book by John Wickham: [4] ff, though unfortunately Google Books is missing a key page, and [5],[6] original research articles, again not free, which suggest Nathan might publish as "MS Nathan". Another book ref [7] which also backs up the Tomorrow's World appearance; also [8],[9],[10],[11]. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Let's examine your sources, Espresso Addict. The articles you cite only mention the subject in passing, their main focus being various medical issues and robotics: in the very long article in the Journal of Military and Veterans' Health, his name is mentioned only once; in the Indy article, "Nathan" comes up twice; the Googled-text citations lead nowhere, as you also acknowledge (one misses the page where subject is meant to appear, and the other two are works by "M.S. Nathan). Even if we accept that it's "our" Nathan who's the author, the mere existence of an author's own work does not mean anything at all in terms of his own notability. We need third-party, independent sources showing independent notability.

Onwards: the book 21st-Century Miracle Medicine only mentions Nathan as the "surgeon in charge" during a robot-performed surgery. The book Surgical Treatment of Colorectal Cancer mentions Nathan only once, in its timeline of "Robotic Colorectal Surgery Worldwide"; same goes for the book Biomechanics and Robotics and the articles "Surgical Robotics" and "Improving Lives with Electronics", i.e. only one mention in each text, in passing. Conclusion : We simply have no sources.

Here's what I see. Nathan has done something in the past that is described in various texts time and again, though only briefly and in passing, as important, i.e. he performed or supervised the "first pure robotic surgery". But we still lack substantial citations from the medical world or the world in general about the person. Me, I could not find much. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not notable. The article title is "Senthil Nathan". If we have to look up Senthil Nathan & PROBOT, Senthil Nathan & John Wickham (the "godfather" of robotics), or any combination of added names to the subject, then notability is shared and either there is not enough individual notability or the title is wrong. The subject isn't even mentioned on the John Wickham article. Otr500 (talk) 00:22, 29 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. – Joe (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elastic.io[edit]

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

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

This appears to be a thinly veiled advertisement for a non-notable business. Of the sources, only one talks about the company in any real detail and that seems to be on a dubious website hosting lots of similar marketing churn. Among other sourcing problems is repeating the same one in german and English, and repeating the link in a footnote in the external links to make it look like the article has more sources than it really does. I cannot find anything substantial either. Reyk _YO! 07:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As previously noted by the editor placing the WP:COI notice, the contributing editor's focus has been on adding material about this company. The same contributor's rationale for removing a WP:PROD was "there are existing Wikipedia articles that mention this company, as well as articles about similar companies. However, there is only one based in Germany - exactly this one" but neither mentions in other articles, nor WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, nor singularity of geographical base, even if true, would be inherent grounds for notability. The multiple Reference and External Links to articles authored by the company founders are WP:PRIMARY. There are mentions along with other service providers and inclusion in "vendor to watch" lists, so it is verifiable as a company going about its business, but this is not a business directory and I am not seeing sufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is a very good chance that this organization meets the criteria for notability as the company and product offerings have been covered by independent analyst reports from firms such as Gartner and Crisp (as per WP:LISTED and yes, even though this company is not listed, the guidelines are clear that analyst reports meet the criteria for establishing notability). But the current article (marginally) fails WP:SPIP - Wikipedia is not a substitute for company sales brochures. With some editing to remove unnecessary details and make it seem less like a sales brochure, this article may turn out good. I'll hold off on a Keep !vote for now since the article needs work. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:22, 23 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rd Storee[edit]

The 3rd Storee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I PROD'ded this album with the rationale: >>Album was unreleased; per the WP criteria for albums at WP:NALBUM, 'Unreleased material... is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources.' This album has not received reliable media notice in its own right; while for the single If Ever has its own article with sources.<< The article's creator removed the PROD with the comment: >>There is an entire [Category:Unreleased albums]; in addition, the two singles charted.<< That is an insufficient other stuff exists argument that does not provide evidence on notability for this album (or the others in the category, for that matter). The truth is that this unreleased album has achieved no significant coverage as an entity in its own right. The only evidence points to the single which already has its own article as a notable song. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic isn't significant coverage? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a review of the album, but how is that possible when the album was never released? If it were a true review of the album it would discuss songs other than the two that are already known as single releases. Use that info to develop and expand the song articles elsewhere in WP. Otherwise AllMusic is usually significant, but here all they did was vaguely name-drop an album that doesn't exist. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptually, an AllMusic review would generally help with notability. But the WP:GNG requires significant coverage from multiple sources that cover the subject in significant detail. AllMusic would only be 1 source, and its pretty short, so I think you'd be hard pressed to call it significant. This is a rather bizarre situation - an unreleased album with multiple singles charted. I've never heard of it, but I want to look some before I !vote delete. It could have gotten coverage for being such a bizarre situation. Sergecross73 msg me 18:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the singles were intended to be advance releases to promote the album, then the album would come out later with two songs that were already hits. But then the album itself was never released. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Never released but reviewed album? There can be no notability here. Otr500 (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly fails WP:NALBUM criteria for unreleased albums. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Market Sweep[edit]

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

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

This is not a notable event. 2 of the references are dead links. This was one day in the longest war the US has been involved. Not notable for people involved. Not notable for casualties or results Speditup (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've advanced what may, possibly, be a better deletion nomination below.Icewhiz (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy keep based on the nomination. (Also, length of the war has no difference on notability of specific battles or events within it.) WP:NOTNOTABLE is not a reason. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per WP:SNOW, this is clearly notable, --Quek157 (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - pending Delete snow wouldn't be applicable at this point, Quek157. In any case, I thought this would be a fairly simple Keep !vote, too, but there is surprisingly little reliable coverage that appeared in a standard WP:BEFORE sweep. Lots of fairly well detailed blogs and listings in books on the war/occupation, but relatively little in terms of significant coverage from suitable sources. I would be surprised if there weren't sufficient sources, but going off what I have, it doesn't seem to satisfy any of WP:EVENTCRIT points, or the secondary points it gives if they don't apply.

The length of the war is of course irrelevant. However event notability is the primary nom argument. The keep !votes are currently just that - votes. Arguments (or just a good citation or two) need to be raised Nosebagbear (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added comments: whole book on it as well as webpage as well as another book. pretty on first page of google search. WP:BEFORE easily cover it. --Quek157 (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now further SNOW, this is a SPA account nominating it. The only purpose is to nominate this AFD --Quek157 (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Quek157: - first source has as its first summary line "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!". Therefore, it can't act as a recursive source to itself! Second book mentions the operation twice - but that's it. It's the most minimal of MENTIONs, so it doesn't qualify either. The webpage is an American military newspaper and so is going to be a fairly imbalanced source - it wouldn't count as sufficiently neutral. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

okay, first source out, but clearly notable. An American military newspaper but this is under NATO operation so secondary coverage. Anyway,fishy SPA, reported at AIV--Quek157 (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Obviously notable. The nominator also appears to be a single-purpose account. LightandDark2000 (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom would appear to be a SPA, given a flawless submission as only action, so a checkuser is probably worthwhile. However - "obviously notable" still isn't a legitimate justification. Functional sources that actually satisfy source requirements for WP:GNG are needed! Nosebagbear (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, all the sources in the page and my 2 added sources will be enough already. That's WP:GNG. --Quek157 (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just explained why those given sources weren't appropriate. Regarding the sources in the article: 2 are dead links, and didn't come up when I sought them. Freeing Fallujah is a non-neutral blog, Global Security is also a non-neutral news source (more like an industry source), "Among Warriors in Iraq" is the writer's own actions. That said, that wouldn't necessarily rule the source out, but verifying any actual (more than) mention of the operation would be pleasant. The source quality, whether here or in article, is poor Nosebagbear (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. I agree nomination is defective - I will advance a nomination: - the subject does not meet GNG. Looking for non-PRIMARY sources in my BEFORE, I found two books referring to this - here where it is listed a very long list of such operations, and here where it has a brief mention. I did mange to find this - which was done by a different unit 1.5 years apart ("market sweep" being a rather well used name for such things). The operation itself, as described, is a rather routine sweep for contraband - there's little reason to think such a minor one day operation with but 60 arrests and some contraband found would be notable - and the PRIMARY and non-RS sources in the article (wapo is there - but from half a year prior to the operation - so not about it - and that would be PRIMARY too) - do not establish notability. The books I mentioned above - also don't. The article itself is, at present, a QUOTEFARM from various participants.Icewhiz (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for advancing the nomination. I would also like to point out that the needs citations for verification block has been there since march of 2009. Nearly ten years and no one has added any additional citations. --Speditup (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why I am being accused of being a SPA. I'm new to editing wikipedia and trying to figure things out. Anyway, this is not a notable event. Anyone who has been in the military will tell you the same. There was more than one Operation Market Sweep. Even the entry itself claims, "nothing on such a small scale could net more than a handful of dealers and weapons" There was even an Operation Market Sweep in Baghdad which produced little according to Stripes. [12] --Speditup (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Upon a closer inspection, do we really have any operational specific criterion in military history here? Like what kind of scope of operation or whatsoever, this is quite marginal in mention but there seems to be adequate, independent sources. The page is talking about Baghad anyway. I served as a OR4 for 2 years anyway, I can't directly tell whether it is notable here or not by having military experience. --Quek157 (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plus you are a Single Purpose Account is because your only contribution is to AFD this. If you can contribute to other area before here, it will not be called a SPA. I don't know whether you are a sock or not - that 1 person using multiple account, that need someone called checkuser to confirm (just replying to edit summary of the above editor - why put there where here is better) --Quek157 (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Quek157: There was apparently more than one Operation Market Sweep in different cities. The Operation Market Sweep article is confusing. Reference #4 has the following statements: a sudden burst of M-16 fire drops one as he tries to run over a US troop coming up on the side of his truck. I administered medical aid to the downed Iraqi, but he was too far gone. killed one of their townfolk. Yet the synopsis on the upper right says there were no casualties. The 5th reference even claims, No shots were fired. The references contradict each other. The Book you found is a 92 page self published work with no reviews. The second book with a list of operations has Operation Market Sweep happening in July of 2005. The person who originated the article appears to be a SPA. As I mentioned I am new member of wikipedia and am trying to figure it out but let's do the user check if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speditup (talk • contribs) 23:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC) --Speditup (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)--Speditup (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Additionally, narrative of citation #5 states, We chased them down, but couldn’t catch any of them in the crowded market yet the synopsis in the upper right claims that 60 members of the Iraqi insurgency were captured. Citation #4 is a dead link but appears to be written by a student for a class. It could have been a creative writing class.--Speditup (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNo opinion after all the above. not snow , i will say it is WP:ROTM coverage and unclear what the operation is. the sources are main primary ones, without secondary sources that cover in depth. Confusing accounts. Likely to be several market sweeps or rather it's market sweeping but not as an operation kind. is an operation by troops to sweep markets not Operation Market Garden. I am convinced by above nominator points. --Quek157 (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per revised nom by Icewhiz. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:56, 29 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. Besides, nobody really dies in comics anyway... I'm not userfying articles, but somebody at WP:REFUND might. Sandstein 19:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of deceased American comic book characters[edit]

List of deceased American comic book characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It's never a good sign when a list comprises entirely in-universe events, cited solely to the works of fiction in which they appear. This survived AFD twice (2013, 2006), but our inclusion standards have tightened considerably since then.

The last AFD closed no consensus, in part because of arguments that "removal from publication with death being the cited as the cause" was a WP:LISTN-compliant inclusion criterion. Of course, when cited to the primary source, it is not. Nor does that even consider the half-page of somewhat contradictory inclusion criteria referenced on the Talk page in an effort to keep this list vaguely under control. It's also not a valid WP:SPINOUT from comic book death because, in that sense, it's largely indiscriminate.

It's possible, in a thought-experiment sense, to imagine a properly sourced, legitimate spinout list, indexing actually notable examples of the trope in the comic medium. At its most generous, that's a call to blow it up and start over, because in over a decade, that's not the direction this content has evolved. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fancruft entirely sourced to the comics themselves. Death in comic books means little, as characters are resurrected all the time, so there seems to be no pertinent reason for its existence beyond a reference for diehard comic book fans, so I doubt such a list would ever fill Wikipedia's current inclusion criteria._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, both WP:FANCRUFT and WP:NOTDIR (it's a non notable cross categorisation). Ajf773 (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:FANCRUFT sourced, if you want to call it that, only to the works of fiction themselves. Reyk _YO! 07:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as poorly defined and impossible to maintain. No one would consider a List of deaths in film, and this fits with that. Any notable death can be covered at Comic book death. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm tempted to rewrite based on the suggestion of a properly sourced, legitimate spinout list, indexing actually notable examples of the trope in the comic medium. Would the closing admin be prepared to userfy to my user space? Hiding T 14:44, 29 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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Prison[edit]

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

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

No evidence of notability. Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - After the AfD, editors have added some pretty in-depth reviews to indicate that the album has achieved coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources. With a cursory search I found another possibility: [13]. The nominator could have found these easily during the WP:BEFORE process. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are enough references to in-depth reviews in major WP:GNG-assisting publications to pass the "notability because critical attention" criterion. An album that was referenceable only to blog and zine reviews wouldn't pass that, but an album that has been singled out for attention by CBC Music and Exclaim! and the Calgary Herald most certainly does (especially because a feature on CBC Music also inherently portends the album going into rotation on a national radio network and thus passing NMUSIC #11.) Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hard to argue with the reliability of the references. Otr500 (talk) 03:35, 29 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. – Joe (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CompNation[edit]

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

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

Fails to pass GNG. Zigzig20s (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Zero indications of notability, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:48, 29 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. request of editor, to see if it can be improved. If not, I will relist. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ale Resnik[edit]

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

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

Not yet notable,and the awards prove it. "...under35" or "..Young ... Leader" implies that the person is still considered a beginner. That makes sense, because his major contribution has been to start a company that failed in less than 3 years.. DGG ( talk ) 15:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:56, 24 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. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 00:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Gambetta[edit]

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

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

The only sources that mention Gambetta are primary (IBM and APS). WP:GNG and WP:NPROF call for discussion in secondary sources. Waggie (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Passes WP:PROF#C3 as a Fellow of the American Physical Society. A GS h-index of 53 is also more than enough to pass WP:PROF#C1, even in a fairly highly-cited field. In academic biographies, sources affiliated with the subject (e.g., websites from the university where they studied) are considered acceptable for claims not likely to be contested (e.g., the years they attended that school). The article could use additional sourcing and an editing for tone, but AfD is not cleanup, and there is absolutely no question of notability here. XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep as above. A mighty WP:Trout for the nominator for not carrying out WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

This long discussion has a couple of mentions about this article. StrayBolt (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep and the nominator needs to go to ANI for this absolutely WP:POINTy nomination. User:Espresso Addict already told them they would have approved this page through AfC in about 30 seconds because it was a clear pass on WP:PROF This is pure disruption by the nom combined with the lies and unsubstantiated attacks against me at AfC talk - beyond unreasonable. AfDing a clearly notable subject you have been told is notable is worse than accepting a Draft that later fails to pass an AfD. Legacypac (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per XOR'easter. The most charitable explanation for this nomination is that the editor has entirely failed to understand the WP:PROF guidelines, but I fear this is not a good-faith nomination per Waggie's contributions to the Articles for Creation discussion linked above by StrayBolt. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If secondary sources are desired, then a few seconds with Google News came up with this profile & this article on his work, plus numerous others. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out he is now an IBM Fellow^[1] Which IBM calls "289 Fellows colleagues from the past 55 years as some of the most creative engineers, scientists and designers IBM — and the world — has known." That passes WP:ANYBIO #1 Legacypac (talk) 00:37, 25 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. – Joe (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia Explorer[edit]

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

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

Not seeing any real notability. Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Certainly not notable. Does not pass WP:NCORP. The two sources are promotional with content such as "firm is now providing more Internet traffic to its advertisers". The second source is to Sibray Marketing owned by the founder of West Virginia Explorer so not even an acceptable source. Otr500 (talk) 05:04, 29 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 WP:A7, WP:G12. SoWhy 15:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Engr. (Mrs) Mary Emiola A.[edit]

Engr. (Mrs) Mary Emiola A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not seeing any notability. Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 24 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. Sandstein 20:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naija news[edit]

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

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

Non-notable media lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: For a news portal established in 2016 to have a Wiki article, it needs more sources than what Naija news is producing. I am usaully more liberal for Nigerian publishing houses that started in the 20th century, but a 2016 website must pass GNG.HandsomeBoy (talk) 15:02, 25 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 List of nicknames used by Donald Trump. Sandstein 19:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pocahontas (nickname)[edit]

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

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

Looks like we need an AfD to kill this article, otherwise it will be resurrected again and again. Is really everything related to Donald Trump which was once fixed in media notable? Are we looking forward to articles on Trump's sink or a favorite suit? Shoud we have an article on every Trump's tweet? Ymblanter (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, do not redirect, per WP:G10 and WP:FANCRUFT. WP:SALT per likelihood that this title can only ever be used as a racist epithet directed at a specific person (also WP:G10). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete he has used the term for Warren in speeches and tweets over a long time but no we don't need this. Legacypac (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because the mind boggles with such mind boggling insignificance. -The Gnome (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but DO Redirect to List_of_nicknames_used_by_Donald_Trump, as the more significant epithets on that page already have such redirects (e.g., Crooked Hillary and Lyin' Ted. The most famous or infamous (take your pick) individual in the world used and uses this harassing name to attack another very notable politician. WP:G10 certainly applies to when would-be Wikipedia editors are disparaging, threatening, intimidating, or harassing a subject, but not when our article subjects are attacking other persons in a notable way. Vadder (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking the Delete part of my !vote so as to retain the attribution history. Vadder (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of nicknames used by Donald Trump (and absolutely not to Elizabeth Warren). I'm not just passionately excited about the long-term viability of the "list of nicknames" article, but it survived AFD pretty handily, so I'll just sit here quietly and hold a minority opinion. At the very least, if we're going to have the article in that format, we might as well point stuff like that to it. For attribution reasons, delete-and-redirect is probably not the right approach here. Protecting the redirect will almost certainly be required. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of nicknames used by Donald Trump. Trump has used this nickname for Warren on many occassions, and although the press has extensively covered it, I don't believe it's of enough significance to warrant a stand-alone article. (Certainly nowhere near the signifiance of Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.) I certainly don't agree with the notion that this page is wp:fancruft. Trump's repeated usage of this nickname for Warren has received quite an extensive amount of media coverage. Zingarese (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on redirection - if we're going to have a redirect for this, it should be disambiguated in a way which makes clear that it's both intended by the subject and heard by the target, as well as largely viewed by reliable sources (e.g. [14]) as a racial slur, not a nickname. I suggest Pocahontas (slur). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of nicknames used by Donald Trump as a plausible search term. And protect it so nobody can do this again. Smartyllama (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (keeping the edit history) to List of nicknames used by Donald Trump: this is exactly what that list is for, as the AfD discussion for that list bore out. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per Ivanvector. Not needed here at all and a definite WP:BLP issue. Nate • (chatter) 03:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Redirect to list of nicknames used by Donald Trump, and Salt/Protect for reasons already articulated by the nominator and several people including myself at multiple other similar discussions. Fails WP:GNG among other things. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of nicknames used by Donald Trump seems the most reasonable home for it. Well covered term but does not need it's own article. PackMecEng (talk) 21:27, 27 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. Sandstein 19:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist system[edit]

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

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

In response to not being allowed to completely overwrite socialist state with their POV that only Marxist-Leninist states can be described as socialist, a user who is now indeffed created this essay. While deliberately WP:POINTy, this essay effectively duplicates the topic we already cover at communist state. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this wannabe essay full of wannabe omniscience about wannabe socialists and please salt this wanna be zombie. -The Gnome (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt so that we don't have to deal with this nonsense anymore. --Tarage (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above Andrevan@ 20:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - piling on. Already covered by communist state with substantially less POV. Jip Orlando (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:46, 25 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pina Conti[edit]

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

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

Poorly sourced article since its creation over 10 years ago. Searches turned up virtually zero in-depth coverage so she does not meet WP:GNG. Neither does she pass WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete This is one of the worst cases of "Wikipedia is not IMDb" that I have seen. Wikipedia does not aim to have articles on everyone who ever appeared in a film, or even on everyone who appeared in the top 10 or so films by theatre revenues each year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not notable unsourced pseudo BLP that should have been deleted a long time ago. Otr500 (talk) 05:20, 29 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. Sandstein 20:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

H. David Archibald[edit]

H. David Archibald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Biography of a person notable only as founder and executive director of an organization that does not have an article, referenced only to an obituary on legacy.com. This is not a notability-conferring source in and of itself, however, as it simply aggregates every paid inclusion death notice published in any participating newspaper, regardless of notability or lack thereof, and founding a non-notable organization is not an "inherent" notability freebie that automatically exempts a person from having to be referenced much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. 01:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If you look in the initials, he won an Order of Canada. Keep. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting named to the Order of Canada is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to clear WP:GNG. It counts as a notability claim if, and only if, the person can be shown as the subject of enough media coverage to pass GNG for whatever it was they did to earn that distinction — but the presence of an OC after his name is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts him from ever having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it wouldn't at least be a trigger to slow down, and put up any amount of templates encouraging expansion, sourcing, etc. The first instinct should not be delete. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Howzabout maybe I already did a WP:BEFORE check to see if I could find enough quality sourcing to salvage it? What's been added since the nomination is not coverage about him, but coverage which quotes him speaking in articles about something other than him — which is not notability-building sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• On the matter of legacy.com - the obituary was published in the Toronto Star and delivered via Legacy.com; I've updated the citation to reflect this. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. It's still the paid-inclusion "every single person who died at all, regardless of their notability or lack thereof" section in the Toronto Star classifieds, so it is not a notability-assisting source just because it's in the Toronto Star. If the Toronto Star had assigned a journalist to write a news story about his death, that would count for something (but still not for enough all by itself as the article's only source), but the strictly WP:ROUTINE paid-inclusion death notice in the classifieds counts for nothing. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the matter of the 'organization not having an article', it has a section in an article --> Centre_for_Addiction_and_Mental_Health#Addiction Research Foundation. I've updated the article accordingly. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - insufficient coverage. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 08:17, 30 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. Sandstein 20:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quartzy[edit]

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

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes is passing mentions, WP:SPIP, and routine funding news. Created by Special:Contributions/Encomiast3 with no other contributions outside this topic. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH.

The first AfD discussion closed as "no consensus" in 2013. NCORP has been tightened since then, so it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The have some coverage including two articles from the Wall Street Journal which I believe is significant. I do think the article could use expansion Freetheangels (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Both WSJ references are blogs which fail WP:RS and fail the criteria for establishing references also. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indications of notability. Difficult to call a company founded in 2011 a "startup" at this stage too. Fail GNG, WP:SPIP and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Looks like they were written up in Nature which is pretty prestigious. On digging, their founders were PhDs at pretty notable labs. Given their niche they seem notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8001:55A6:612F:6080:7385:6B0F (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response The Nature reference is concerned with the product, not the company (which is what this article is about). Notwithstanding that, within the article itself, all of the information and data are quotations from "Marie Ebersole, who manages the chemistry preparation room at Wellesley College in Massachusetts" - the same Marie Ebersole whose image is used to promote the procut on Quartzy's website. Definitely not "intellectually independent" and fails the criteria for establishing notability. Finally, you say the founders' credentials should be taken in consideration but no, notability is not inherited. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:25, 20 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 Speedster (fiction). Sandstein 20:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Force[edit]

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

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

Comic book fancruft that is entirely in-universe and sourced entirely to the comics. More suitable for DC Wikia than Wikipedia. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Speedster (fiction), where it is defined in a single sentence. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Speedster (fiction). Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 30 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. A Train^talk 19:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fastball Special[edit]

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

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

Wikipedia isn't TVTropes and the previous AfD for this article was laughable. This is a non notable fighting move that is largely just filled with example cruft. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect (to Wolverine (character), where it is mentioned), or else weak delete. The 2007 AFD is obviously a product of it's time and the arguments there can be safely ignored. As far as sources go, if there were more available like this article at Comic Book Resources, I might be arguing for retention. But... there simply aren't. This entry in Geektionary: From Anime to Zettabyte, An A to Z Guide to All Things Geek falls very far short of what's needed to establish notability (and the fact that they couldn't be bothered to correctly alphabetize their entries is irksome). And from there, we're down to a handful of reference in video game periodicals (all of which I have available only in snippet view): [15][16][17] (at least one of those is a non-X-Men context). I don't think there's enough substantial coverage there, before getting into the weeds about what constitutes "independent" sourcing of this concept. But I could imagine being convinced otherwise if there's another really solid RS source or two that I overlooked... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable Argento Surfer (talk) 13:58, 29 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 the stable, Nomination withdrawn per reasons below, I sincerely recommend the author to try to expand articles or to submit them as drafts to AFC for peer editing and more help(non-admin closure) Quek157 (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnybrook Stable Fire[edit]

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

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

not news, one event. fails gng Quek157 (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Sunnybrook Park since the stable is inside of the park. Also, you didn't link WP:GNG. I created the article as a stub to see if there would be more information to add, but there clearly isn't more. 344917661X (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will just say this is just news and WP:NOTNEWS will not allow inclusion. There is no point to keep the information anyway. I am always trying to do WP:ATD but this is a no. WP:N and WP:NOT must be together. Anyone searching for the stable will see the stable and by itself, the stable is weak in sourcing and this one event will not make the page better. I can even propose a deletion on that page based on WP:ROTM. --Quek157 (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I seen author has added the same info there, no need for merger at all, will withdrawl this nomination and do it as redirect. To article creator, it is always good to expand on new articles, rather than doing such an article which is clearly one event. We don't allow people with only one event through, much less a stable, see WP:ROUTINE and WP:BIO1E. This is the best I can do as to WP:ATD Thanks --Quek157 (talk) 12:27, 24 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 19:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

X2vnc[edit]

X2vnc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This software does not appear notable. The article has been sourced only to its own homepage for around a decade, and is written as a how-to guide for the most part. I can find no substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. Reyk _YO! 11:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up blog entries and forum posts related to the software, but no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Seems somewhat unclear if anyone has checked out the (Google) Scholar link above where X2vnc's different approach seems to be noted.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:48, 27 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. Sandstein 19:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Powers and abilities of Superman[edit]

Powers and abilities of Superman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Comic book WP:FANCRUFT that is more fit for DC Wikia than Wikipedia. Predominantly referenced to the comics themselves besides some minor links. The Superman article already describes this information in a more succinct and encyclopedic manner. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Coverage in the Superman article is adequate, and the actual abilities have varied wildly over time. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, There's actually a pretty good article lurking here that fits with summary style. Hiding T 14:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Done some small bits, The Ages of Superman: Essays on the Man of Steel in Changing Times looks like a good source for expanding and tweaking. Hiding T 15:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect to Superman. The overwhelming majority of sources are WP:PRIMARY. Beyond that, the article subject is of little interest beyond dedicated fans, and in fact the lead of this article is a verbatim copy of what is in the Superman article. The remainder is based exclusively on primary sources and is WP:OR, something which is also obvious once a look is taken at the contents of the talk page. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The lede is supposed to be a verbatim copy of what is in the Superman article. This suggests you are unfamiliar with practise on Wikipedia and are not following the debate, see the previously mentioned summary style guidance. Hiding T 08:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm really getting at is that beyond the lead, there is no quality content sourced with independent, non-primary sources. If the lead as copied verbatim is short enough to fit in the relevant article (as it currently is), there is no need for a split. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:43, 30 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. Sandstein 19:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dave McIntyre[edit]

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

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, who has no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage to carry it. Apart from a couple of pieces in his own local hometown pennysaver and an article in The Globe and Mail which is about Dave's father, and is thus irrelevant to the notability of Dave because it isn't about him, this is otherwise "referenced" entirely to social media posts, online music stores and PR blogs rather than reliable source coverage. The sourcing here simply isn't cutting it at all, and the article says nothing about him that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much more reliable source coverage than this. There's a likely conflict of interest here, as the article was created by an WP:SPA named "Maplesyrupketchup" and has since been edited by another SPA named "Dave1010100" — but as always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations venue for aspiring future notables to promote themselves. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a poorly-sourced article on a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 23 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 salt Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Botnari conductor[edit]

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

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

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

It would appear to me the assertions made in this article simply do not correspond to what can be be verified.

• First of all is the assertion that the subject is an "internationally renowned conductor". If that was the case, it would be expected that there would be an internet footprint for this conductor in reliable sources about classical music. As can be seen (Find sources:... ) at the top of this nomination, there appears to be nothing of that sort.
  
• The assertions that the subject of this article has been involved with orchestras and organizations with blue links in the current form of the article similarly are without verification.
• The red linked orchestras and organizations - Barcelona Philharmonic Orchestra, British Musician Union - are also of concern. Perhaps they have yet Wikipedia articles?
• As for "www.royalmusicsociety.us", it would appear that, most kindly put, it a platform for new musicians to put forward their works. I do not think it is an appropriate external link, let alone a reference for a living person.

Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. No attempt to provide evidence of notability. Already salted at Yuri Botnari. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and saltmultiple A7 G11 per user and this doesn't seems better and can we snow close this fast?Quek157 (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, whereas the subject might be notable, the currebnt article has been written by a bunch of COI editors, and I do not see how it can be brought to our standards without being deleted first. If someone wants to recreate the article, it must be an independent user, who will perform a careful analysis of sources, establishing their reliability and independence.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:20, 31 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

City Centre Patna[edit]