< 2 May	4 May >

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Formtitan[edit]

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

Article about utterly non notable software that should've been speedied. But unfortunately there's no speedy criteria for them. No evidence of notability, no decent sources neither in search nor in the article –Ammarpad (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable at all. SportingFlyer talk 04:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a Salesforce.com#AppExchange item, with primary and partner sources. The text is unclear ("Security is said not to be an issue with formtitan as it is attentive for by no means or effort saved and ranged the software devices at the user level from the physical strictly.") but does not appear to be describing anything notable. My searches are finding nothing better. Fails WP:NSOFT, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found some useful information. It seems to be a new software. I think it should be kept as a Wikipedia page. Ukbenstar (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Ukbenstar talk —Preceding undated comment added 11:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC) — Ukbenstar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep It is not a new software. The article contains some vital points. Other editors are free to contribute and make it better. I feel it contains enough information to be allowed to remain as a Wikipedia page. Mbetohenry Mbetohenry (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC) talk — Mbetohenry (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Three of the citations are to their own website. The other two are advertisements. A search turned up no indepdendent WP:RS sources. Fails WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable. fundamentally promotional. we have a little campaign going on that is likely UPE. See also Formlogix (which I have nominated for speedy) Jytdog (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Stutchbury[edit]

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

I'm an inclusionist, but I simply cannot see how this article passes WP:NPROF. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing which impressed me. Narky Blert (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Article creator User:SwisterTwister not notified - blocked for socking 29 December 2017.) Narky Blert (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:PROF with significant contributions, some of which have been covered in general press, as in:

"[Stutchbury's] research made a splash after it came out in Science in 2009, and soon the journals were regularly publishing geolocator studies of migrating songbirds." Source: Where Do Songbirds Go to Die? After revolutionizing bird-migration science over the past decade, geolocation technology is poised to shine light on the field’s darkest mystery.

This is after a cursory look, but I believe that alone is sufficient for a stub. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Why don't nominators do WP:Before and look at scholar data which gives a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1? A WP:Trout for the nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy keep. Even before looking anywhere beyond the two lines of text of the article, anyone with eyes to read can see a clear pass of WP:PROF#C5. A stunningly bad nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EBOT Streetcar[edit]

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

Completely speculative future possibility mentioned in a single report. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; we do not need to have this article unless it becomes an official project in actual planning/construction. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 04:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and SportingFlyer. I particularly like the specific nature of "as 2024 or by 2034 at the latest" Nosebagbear (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON Atlantic306 (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn given notability claim by JCJC777. (non-admin closure) Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Harvey (Buddhism)[edit]

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

The article claims that Harvey meets WP:NACADEMICS criterion 4. I was unable to verify that these textbooks had the impact claimed and much of the current sourcing on the page is poor (e.g. citing a preface as a source for book sales). I will happily withdraw if credible sourcing can be found for that (or other) notability criterion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

stimulated to start an article as Harvey is so extensively used as a source in the anatta article. If this article deleted then probably right to have less emphasis on Harvey in the anatta article.

JCJC777

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fousseyni Tangara[edit]

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

Thin claims to notability, might be his playing in the Libyan top tier of association football, and even thinner references. Tagged with BLP sources since 2011, the same year an anonymous user wrote up the text. Must not be confused with another footballer, born 1978 of practically the same name. Geschichte (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I found one source (primary) claiming he played in the Syrian, Tunisian and Emirati pro leagues (with Al-Ittihad, CS Sfaxien and Dubai Club) which suggests he could satisfy NFOOTY, but I can't find anything else to support that claim. Jogurney (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 8 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) 11:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indira Gandhi Balika College, Rajesultanpur[edit]

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

This article is about a intermediate college in India that is not verifiable. The article creator has a history of rather sloppy article creation where text and references from other articles are copied and pasted, and then not changed at all in creating an article. For an example of this, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajkiya PG College, Rajesultanpur. The editor has also engaged in deliberate misinformation such as adding images purportedly of Rajesultanpur but were in fact another city or Lake Michigan. My review of the provided sources as of this version via machine translation seemed to indicate that the sourcing was for other schools. Understanding tht machine translation from Hindi might be a problem, I asked for help. user:Winged Blades of Godric kindly helped out with a review and essentially confirmed that the references arren't useful and removed them. The one remaining reference is for an Indira Gandhi Girls school in Rajesultnapur but it's not at all clear its the school referred to in this article. I tried to find sources but I am not able to even verify this school's existence. As such, this article should be deleted. If the school really does exist, then it can be recreated with some proper sources. Whpq (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--As I said on my t/p. Verifiability is a fundamental requirement.~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Simony[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jack Simony

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

Per WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The subjcct doesn't seems to have enough notability Johnny1789 (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of passing GNG or any applicable SNG in article or searches. The coverage that is independent is not significant and vice-versa. WP:NOTLINKEDIN also clearly applies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. clpo13_(talk) 23:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Sparks[edit]

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

Cannot see how this passes wither WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN. Edwardx (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I found a few sources with biographical info, some good, some meh. Looks like he just barely meets WP:GNG. Will add the meat when I have time. [[1]],[[2]],[[3]],[[4]], [[5]] (caveat - primary source); [[6]] (says he has a CD); [[7]] (primary, but lists appearances that would be easy to source). TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:NMUSICIAN #6. He is currently the principal flutist of the St. Louis Symphony and served as associate principal flutist of the Baltimore Symphony. In addition, he has served as principal flutist of the San Antonio, Memphis, and Canton Symphony Orchestras. Zingarese (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified by Tim, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies (see WP:SOFTDELETE). clpo13_(talk) 23:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Baker Twins[edit]

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

Article about a pair of twins, who each already have their own standalone WP:BLP articles as individuals -- so I'm really unclear on why we would need to keep those articles simultaneously with a merged duplicate article about them as a pair. Besides their BLPs, the only other article linking here at all does so as a parenthetical after directly linking to the standalone BLPs too, so no context is going to be lost by just ditching the unnecessary duplicate. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 18:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it and the two individual articles. Wikipedia is not a vanity publisher or a means of promotion. Sourcing is inadequate for notability. The girls own site, them talking about themselves, alumni publication, indiscriminate puff piece. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 23:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom & Jame[edit]

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

Currently unsourced; searching reveals only mentions in social media and other unreliable sources. No WP:RS to meet WP:BAND. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, very little coverage on topic. The only report I could find from any reliable music sources is this link from Dancing Astronaut, but that was posted 5 years ago and nothing new has came up on Tom and Jame recently on any sites. Even if the page were to be expanded, not much information can be added to it except for an unsourced discography section. aNode (discuss) 08:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete after extended discussion, and some improvement to the article. bd2412 T 03:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Native American scalps at Karl May Museum[edit]

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

I nominated this for speedy with the rationale: Created by SPA account Quinn2425 which is in WP solely to promote Mark Worth and his causes; this is one of them, as the page below notes. This page is a near perfect example of abuse of WP:SOAP. We don't even have an article on Karl May Museum yet we have this. I added some WP:DUE content at Karl_May#Radebeul about this. I thought about merging and redirecting but this too just furthers the abuse of WP. We are not a soapbox - that is policy. It is also crappy editing, with embedded URLs and the like. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shouldn't have a subarticle when the parent doesn't exist. This is covered (although it says 17 rather than 19 scalps) in Karl May#Radebeul. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For the moment I'll just note that an article about the museum could exist: the German version is at de:Karl-May-Museum Radebeul. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things ~could~ exist. This page is industrial waste and is much an abuse of WP as an advertisement to buy some gadget. It should have been speedy deleted as spam but that was thwarted, so we need to shovel the shit out though this process. Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Mark Worth page created and maintained by the same editor who created this has now been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Worth; you can see the editor bludgeoned that page to no avail. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, the Native American scalps at the museum are more notable than the museum itself, which may mean, this is the article:

New York Times
The Guardian
South China Morning Post
Deutsche Welle
Project Muse
Indian Country Today
From ProQuest:
- ~~Request to return scalps tests Germans' love of the Old West, Eddy, Melissa. International New York Times; Paris [Paris]18 Aug 2014: 3.~~ Striking this as it turns out to be the Paris version of the NYT New York version listed above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Action of `der Wilde West' alive in Germany, Joy Schaleben Lewis. The Grand Rapids Press; Grand Rapids, Mich. [Grand Rapids, Mich]29 Mar 1992: C6.

I'd be happy to write the article correctly; it shouldn't take a day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Tarage (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after substantial editing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i worked this over, removing the blatant SOAP aspects (the skewed lead; the elaborate detail and extensive use of quotes which is a telltale sign of SOAP), along with factually incorrect or unsourced statements, things out of chronological order, and COPYVIO.

This is still here to publicize Worth's cause and I do not retract my nomination. I find the remark above Possibly, the Native American scalps at the museum are more notable than the museum itself, which may mean, this is the article. Sure, and the CIA "may" have planned and executed 9/11, and Hillary may have known more about Benghazi than she ever said. Jon Stewart had a great piece on this kind of "may"- or "if"-based "argument".

There are plenty of sources about the museum itself.

* interesting discussion of how the museum, which is in territory that used to be East Germany, refactored its displays as part of Soviet-block efforts to rally indigenous peoples against the US - Tóth, György Ferenc (2016). From Wounded Knee to Checkpoint Charlie: The Alliance for Sovereignty between American Indians and Central Europeans in the Late Cold War. SUNY Press. pp. 128ff. ISBN 9781438461236.

* New Yorker piece with some good discussion. Galchen, Rivka (2 April 2012). "Wild West Germany". The New Yorker.

* News of new director after a haiatus - "Radebeul: Christian Wacker wird Direktor im Karl-May-Museum". Mitteldeutsche Rundfunk (in German). January 11, 2018.

* Donation of some new artifacts - Schirmer, Nina (27 January 2018). "Wertvolle Raritäten fürs Karl-May-Museum". SZ-Online (in German).

book by Jace Weaver (there is someone we should have an article on) that discusses the history of the museum at several points: Weaver, Jace (2001). Other Words: American Indian Literature, Law, and Culture. University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 9780806133522.

There is lots more. The museum has been around for ca 100 years, for pete's sake.

This page is SOAP not to mention skewed RECENTISM.Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the version before you beat me to removing the primary source letter (Letter from Cecil E. Pavlat Sr., Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, to Karl May Museum, 10 March 2014), noting though that a good deal of what was in that letter is also mentioned in the reliable secondary sources. An option would have been to rewrite this content, and the over quotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

continuing the above, book discussing a bit how Nazis appropriated the museum and native american symbols -- Penny, H. Glenn (2013). Kindred by Choice: Germans and American Indians Since 1800. UNC Press Books. ISBN 9781469607641.

Keep - I didn't see the prior version, nor (given the comments), do I desire to go check, but in its current form it seems to have both sufficient notability and (were it to matter) sufficient quality to remain. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been significantly improved and now is referenced to pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States. There's a clear consensus to get rid of the page as it stands now, but it's less clear what exactly should happen to it. This discussion has already been relisted twice, so I'm closing as a redirect in the vein of List of supercentenarians from Asia, but it would probably be more appropriate to convert this article to a disambiguation page or list of lists, given that there are a handful of supercentenarians from Canada and one from Jamaica. clpo13_(talk) 23:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of North American supercentenarians[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Absolutely no sources discuss this particular supercentenarian data set. Every reference used in this article are all tables from the GRG and nowhere on their site do they have a page, list, table, etc discussing supercentenarians by continent. If we Google the oldest living person (Delphine Gibson), all news articles describe her as the oldest in the country and not the continent which suggests this is not a notable list. Furthermore, it's a redundant table because it duplicates List of supercentenarians from the United States with the exception of six names. And those six should already be on other longevity lists. CommanderLinx (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a topic discussed anywhere. Either World or US are valid topics. This is fancruft. Legacypac (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect – To List of supercentenarians from the United States. Is the subject area notable, Yes. But already addressed here at Wikipedia. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or also delete the other lists in Category:Lists of supercentenarians by continent. If kept, link to List of supercentenarians from the United States and (ahem!) List of Canadian supercentenarians, and something can be done about Violet Brown. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The other lists of supercentrians by continents shoild be dealt with on their own merits. The European list has been a good place to roll together country lists. Legacypac (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Asia and Oceania articles are also redundant but I agree they should be looked at separately. And Violet Brown is on several other lists (list of the verified oldest people, List of the verified oldest women and Oldest people off the top of my head) so no loss of info in a delete and there's nothing to merge. CommanderLinx (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why relist? Consensus has been reached here. Three users want a form of deletion and one proposes deletion of other pages as a condition, which was not accepted. Legacypac (talk) 06:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bondegezou (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I will just note that Wikipedia is not a vote, so you if you want your view to be considered, you should provide your reasoning. Master of Time (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting the type of coverage required by WP:N. Canadian Paul 12:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is reasonable content for an almanac, and is also a reasonable WP:SAL. It's inaccurate to redirect to a United States-only page here, no opinion on other merge suggestions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This list isn't reasonable and redirecting isn't inaccurate. It's non-notable because no sources discuss it and it's redundant because the only difference between the two lists are 6 names and they're already on other lists. Redirecting/Deleting loses no information and there's nothing to merge. CommanderLinx (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting isn't inaccurate? Last time I looked, the last hostile merger attempt failed miserably, and Canada is still in North America. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 Canadians are already listed in List of Canadian supercentenarians which makes a North American one even more redundant. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh??? Canada is part of North America, so redirecting to only American supercentenarians is misleading. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again - why the relist? We have added two deletes and a redirect. Is the relister just praying someone comes along to vote keep here? An Admin needs to close this. Legacypac (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Turn into a disambig page Since pages for USA and Canada exist, this page would be a good disambig page to send people looking for such subjects to the appropriate sub-lists. Since we have lists for other continents, it's reasonable that viewers will expect to find a list for North America as well. Regards So Why 07:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was envisioning with the keep portion of my lvote, though it wouldn't be a dab page, but rather a list of lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:59, 5 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. clpo13_(talk) 23:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jarjis Danho[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA, only 2 top-level fights, not 3. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. Unlikely to meet WP:NMMA in the future and does not meet WP:GNG.PRehse (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article claims he's currently fighting in the UFC, but he hasn't had an MMA fight since 2016. Currently fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 19:40, 5 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. clpo13_(talk) 23:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal Conceal[edit]

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

Contested PROD, submitted to afd per contributor's request. Promotional, advertising of an unreleased but announced product, just another concealed weapon, can be handled with a line or two in "pocket pistol", not notable just because it looks like a fake cell phone, part of a general class of concealed weapons and not individually notable. Wtshymanski (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When you say "contributor's request", do you mean creator? Me? When did I request it? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably with this edit comment "... it is AfD time." 86.168.83.226 (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, but only as a really, really terrible argument. You see, the whole edit summary was "rm prod and remove price. i'm allowed to do this. please do not restore the prod template. once removed, it is AfD time. That's how it works". You left out the rest in your diff.

Surely Wtshymanski read the whole thing, so I am confused about how he would misconstrue that as a request. Plus, he also must have read this and this. Wtshymanski, would you care to explain, in the absence of stupidity or malice (I trust you are not stupid or bad), how you construed that as a request? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the prod, you said it's time to submit the article to afd, and here we are. I remember the old days when words meant what they said. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And after reading all I wrote at article talk and edit summaries, you still thought that was a request, okay. I remember the old days when it was understood what words obviously meant. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And for what it was worth Anna Frodesiak as the article's creator, was the one person not permitted to remove the PROD, but she did. Anyway, we are here now. 86.168.83.226 (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Afaik, there isn't anything preventing an article's creator being the one that removes the tag. Good form or not is separate. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit cock-eyed isn't it. The creator of an article is almost certain to remove a PROD. 86.168.83.226 (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, 86.168.83.226 and Nosebagbear. Yes, that is correct.

PROD must only be used if no opposition is expected. Opposition was obviously to be expected. Wtshymanski, please review policy.

A PROD may never be restored once removed. I removed it. Kbrose restored it. Kbrose, please review policy.

Any editor, including the article's creator may remove the tag. That was me, and I had every right to do so. I know policy.

I started this line of comment because the lead here has the disingenuous "... submitted to afd per contributor's request..." and that is all. Shall we move on? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to Anna Frodesiak not only for article creation and knowledge of Wikipedia's rules, but for one of Wikipedia's cleverest user names.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so, so much, Tom.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This gun was mentioned by Chuck Schumer and Jaclyn Corin and will be featured by the NRA. That in itself should be enough for notability. Plus. there are plenty of sources for it to pass GNG. The article itself is mostly criticism, so the claim of it being promotional can be addressed by simply removing the price. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That the NRA will feature it won't, of itself, help its notability, though I imagine some coverage of it will occur, which would aid it. In any case the other sources are sufficient to provide notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 10:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources in article are sufficient; in addition the topic of guns and violence is a major one in contemporary political discourse (crime, NRA, gun violence, elections, etc) and will continue to be huge in the foreseeable future.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't look promotional at all to me, and it easily passes the GNG. -- irn (talk) 18:15, 5 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 (see WP:SOFTDELETE). clpo13_(talk) 23:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PlayGiga[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet inclusion criteria of WP:CORPDEPTH. References are merely the routine coverage of a startup, in not-so-reliable sources. Hitro talk 13:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The citations look like reworded press releases in four languages (props to their PR department). None of them looks like an independent secondary source. A search turned up nothing better. WP:TOOSOON at best. Narky Blert (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was revert to disambiguation page. clpo13_(talk) 23:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Haider[edit]

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

No sources, no obvious notability.

Most of the article is about tribal affiliation and extremely remote relatives Heliotom (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Just an NCO (or actually almost certainly a junior officer if he really had the MBE, which was never awarded to NCOs). No notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Revert to dab page as below. Should never have been changed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This used to be a disambiguation page before it was repurposed: [8]. Should it be restored as one? 24.151.116.12 (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to dab, Current page fails WP:V. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to dab. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to dab. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies (see WP:SOFTDELETE). clpo13_(talk) 23:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Universtores.com[edit]

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

Promotional article of non-notable online business masquerading as international company. No independent sources, no evidence of meeting WP:NCORP. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article about an e-business proposition. The equivalent French article was redirected to "The Marketplace Company" and then deleted after an October 2010 discussion. There was some typical start-up coverage in 2009, but I am seeing nothing which meets WP:CORPDEPTH either as Universtores or "The Marketplace Company". AllyD (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 23:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeung Chan[edit]

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

Non notable local woodworker/carpenter. Wrote one self-published book, and once worked in local furniture business. No independent sources, no evidence of notability. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTLINKEDIN WP:NOTFACEBOOK WP:NOTPROMOTION Acnetj (talk) 07:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MT Train^Talk 11:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Deb (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, nom is incorrect about book being selfpublished, lark is an imprint of Sterling Publishing which in turn is part of Barnes & Noble.Coolabahapple (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're correct: Lark appears to be selective, based on their submission guidelines page. Largoplazo (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-published" doesn't mean you printed it your parlour with handheld printer!, thats where you are missing the point. It means you paid for it, you paid commercial publishers and they published it irrespective of their credibility. It wasn't thoroughly vetted by independent external experts. It wasn't chosen from competing entries. It was only routinely read by proofreaders and ordinary editors to fix grammar mess and style issues. But that doesn't make it academic book. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

really? thanks for that.Coolabahapple (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know that's what self-published means. Where do you see that Lark charges the author for their services? I've seen self-publishing sites, and didn't see where this resembled one. Largoplazo (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Classic Joints appears to be a "go to" book for this subject, WorldCat shows it is held by around 200 libraries (not just in the US but even in UK, NZ, and OZ!:)), with the couple of reviews cited in the article, the review here and mentions here and here, i would be comfortable with a wikiarticle on the book, although not sure if there is enough for a standalone about the author. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are not discussing book here. You can create article for it, notability for books is very loose. But here we are discussing notability of the person himself, not magazine review of his book. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for enlightening me on this Ammarpad, i do tend to go off on a tangent at times, but hang on, have you heard of that little notability guideline, WP:NAUTHOR (evidently not from your above words), point 3 talks of the person creating a significant or well-known work (book) or works (books) that have been subject to multiple articles or reviews, so discussing someones book(s) is certainly relevant to this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 23:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Juhi Bharathi[edit]

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

Models and actors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:NMODEL. On a quick look, subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person either so fails GNG as well. Maybe it's too soon. Saqib (talk) 07:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree totally. All sources having passing mentions about her. Claims that she has signed Bollywood films are unsourced & search doesn't show any coverage proving these clamins either. Fails GNG. TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, an article with so many claims to notability but there are no independent sources to back them up. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks adequate sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 23:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BioGift[edit]

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

Article about non notable organization. No meaningful sources in the article and none can be found in search. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTPROMOTION Acnetj (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - plenty of name checks, but little in the way of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 10:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scentsy[edit]

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

Sources are mainly their own website or routine coverage/ explicitly disallowed under WP:NCORP (cf trivial coverage includes "inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists"). No independent indepth reliable sourcing to write an appropriate article and pass notability. I also have to say that I'm not exactly happy about advertising a multilevel marketing company (aka scam) Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Leaving aside ethical questions on Multi-level marketing, my searches are finding routine announcements and a recent appearance on a mid-size employer list (Idaho Statesman, 2 May 2018) but neither these nor the article text and sources indicate WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 07:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - significant coverage in independent sources just isn't forthcoming, even if the article was cleaned up to be less promotional (which it would need should it be kept). Richard ⁰⁶¹² 09:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies (see WP:SOFTDELETE). clpo13_(talk) 23:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Insignificant others[edit]

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

Non notable musical by non-notable musician. Won minor non-notable award which was also presented by non-notable organization. That is vicious circle of non-notability. But more importantly, the article lacks decent sources to show why it's notable, not only in the article but also in search. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First, the composer has not attained notability (see WP:COMPOSER). The musical received a few professional notices (e.g. [9]) but otherwise there is little more than routine listings of its existence. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 23:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Vega[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Boleyn (talk) 06:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Doesn't meet any of the guidelines. A profile in the local newspaper is not enough. see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Vega (jockey)--Rusf10 (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC criteria.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. May be WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Utilization Theory[edit]

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

Promotional article for what is admitted in the article itself to be a fringe theory. Efforts to reduce it to an encyclopedic article or even more it as promotional have failed. Article consists of a series of promotional quotations, embedded in explanations of it from its own publishing house. The theory name is repeated in the article as often as possible; so is the name of its founder--that's a reliable hallmark of promotionalism. The article admits most criticism is negative, but 90% of what is included is positive. The theory may well be slightly notable, but NOT ADVOCACY is a basic principle which we should not compromise. There is no need to merge with the founder, as it is already covered adequately in the enthusiastic article on Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, which might also merit some attention. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is in bad shape and needs to be trimmed down a lot. Actually there is one user that has bulked the article out a lot, @Maheśvara:, see contributions Special:Contributions/Maheśvara. The article before was still in poor shape, but a lot shorter [revision circa August 2017]. Having said this, I believe the article is notable and the material better handled in a separate article rather than being inserted into Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that mightbe a possible solution. Will you watch it? DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to my watchlist. I've started trimming it down, will continue when I get more time. Jonpatterns (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies (see WP:SOFTDELETE). clpo13_(talk) 23:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ivalua[edit]

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

The sources on the page are among the best I found doing WP:BEFORE and does not appear to have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Silicon Valley Business Journal is only source that is significant and could be considered reliable. This is even before the possible COI creation as shown on the talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page -- Hi Barkeep49, I replaced a source on the Ivalua page to address your flag. The remaining sources have fairly significant readership and are third-party, neutral references. Please advise on any specific issues still remaining that necessitate this flag, or if the flag can now be taken down. Thanks, Jahub (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable company that fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, and WP:SIGCOV. Article concerns a decently sized cloud computing company, but nothing indicates why Ivalua is distinct (implying to me it is run of the mill) or notable when compared to other cloud computing companies. Coverage is lacking, with most sources being press releases about the company's sales, funding, or routine company acquisitions. I agree with the nominator on the point that the Silicon Valley Business Journal is the only reliable source cited by the article, an I would expand by noting that the SVBJ article in question does not provide in-depth coverage of Ivalua and is rather concerned with announcing a new investment in the company. The article also contains quotes from Ivalua's CEO and data provided by the company, so it may not be entirely third party. This type of article was one of the reasons NCORP was recently strengthened. The other sources cited are also lackluster, with one ([10]) being from a corporate-sponsored media site and another ([11]) being a wordpress site. In short, Ivalua is a company that exists but makes (and I my view has) no real claims to notability or significance.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that there are not enough secondary sources on Lewis himself to satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria (that is, the criteria of Wikipedia in 2018, as opposed to that of 2007). The show, on the other hand, might be notable enough for an article if appropriate sources can be found. clpo13_(talk) 23:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Lewis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was nominated before and closed as "keep" (by someone who is sorely missed), but the discussion wasn't very deep, and a close look at the sources reveals there really isn't much to it--just the one article from the alternative weekly Portland Mercury in the "man bites dog" category. Google doesn't offer anything reliable either. Not notable per GNG. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Delete. No recent news hits and the main general results are his media site, Twitter (including this), Facebook, and Youtube videos. The one article referenced above would be covered by WP:NEWSBRIEF. No sign of ongoing notability. Home Lander (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, surprised it lasted this long, I do not see any notability. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable non-entity; this is the extent of the covergae of him in third-party, independent reliable sources: Almost nothing; certainly not of the depth or persistence needed to meet the basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that it is a long running nationwide radio show makes it notable. There is too much ongoing censorship, closed mindedness and anti-freedom of speech. Wikiperson777 (talk) 4:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Keep. What Wikiperson777 said above.Localemediamonitor (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the subject's lack of notability for the purposes of Wikipedia. The show might be notable, but this article is not about the show. Further explanation available on my user page if desired. Mordant Kitten (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having or not having a Wikipedia article is not a question of free speech vs. censorship, it's a question of notability vs. non-notability — but notability is not established by what an article says, it's established by how well the article reliably sources what it says. However, the referencing here is far too dependent on his own primary source content about himself, which does not help to establish notability: people get Wikipedia articles by being the subject of reliable source coverage, not by being the author of their own self-published sources about themselves. The only reference that actually counts as a reliable or notability-assisting source is a piece in his own hometown alt-weekly — so that reference would be fine if the rest of the sourcing around it were better, but it does not singlehandedly confer a WP:GNG pass all by itself as an article's only valid source. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to hand him an automatic inclusion freebie just because he exists — but the sourcing is simply not cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat and Mordant Kitty make good points. It's a difficult choice. There are only two news articles on Lewis to use as reliable secondary sources; the other sources are primary. This would argue for non-notability. On the other hand, the radio program is syndicated with a national audience, which would argue for notability and for using a sprinkling of primary sources in addition to the secondary sources, which in the past Wiki editors have judged as reasonable and in good faith.Localemediamonitor (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way too much of the article is based on Lewis's own statements, not on reliable 3rd party secondary sources. The fact that this article was kept in 2007 was a true travesty that set Wikpedia on a couse of avoiding any reasonable criteria for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say the decision set Wikipedia on that course. That's a lot of responsibility and culpability for one little article to shoulder.. :D Mordant Kitten (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no mainstream media coverage for him or his show. You want an example of a Wikipedia keep travesty? Check this recent one out, incredibly poor sourcing and all. [[12]] This one looks great compared to that. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 05:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Im noticed seeing the same level of detail and evidence in the keep votes that are evident in the delete ones Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Sullivan (rehabilitation academic)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. (this is not MJ Sullivan from Duke University Medical Center). Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Did get a QSO but that is well down on the list of New Zealand Royal Honours System. Last afd closed no consensus on the question of the strength of that award but since then others have taken a closer look at honours and notability. See User:Necrothesp/Notability criteria for recipients of honours. QSO falls short of qualifying a recipient for "inherent" notability under WP:ANYBIO #1. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' I have added some of more information. He appears to have just enough, with the little I have added, to meet WP:Scholar NealeFamily (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of Scholar do you think he meets? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for duffbeerforme - deleting his career information, albeit for plagiarism, and the nominating the article for deletion seems a bit off. Wouldn't it have been better to correctly add the information with appropriate citations - all you have done is waste our time. NealeFamily (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. I do not accept that removing a copyright violation well over four years ago was in any way wrong. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that its removal was appropriate, but don't you think that it would have been easier to simply correct it than end up putting the article up for deletion? Just a note from the first time it was put up for deletion - I agree the St Peters affray was a reasonable reason for suspicion and doubt about this persons validity for inclusion in Wiki, many were not notable. NealeFamily (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are sources covering the subject in the required depth. The present article needs to be taken out and shot,but if the consensus is keep, I'm happy to rewrite from scratch (or from my template for new Zealand academics at User:Stuartyeates/sandbox/academicbio) if the closing admin pings me. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy per request: Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:BIO1E or any other "squeek-by exception" by lacking reliable sourcing. If we close with a headcount only at this time we have a "no consensus". "IF" we examine and consider all the policies and guidelines then there is a fundamental flaw in attempting to skirt some of these with "...just enough, with the little I have added, to meet WP:Scholar. This is a WP:BLP and an article that has only primary sources (two of six are basically dead links) does not satisfy any of the WP:RS requirements. If the This page in a nutshell means anything look at the one at the top of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Otr500 (talk)

This page in a nutshell:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
All biographies of living individuals must comply with the policy on biographies of living individuals, being supported by sufficient reliable independent sources to ensure neutrality.
Notability criteria may need to be met for a person to be included in a standalone list article.

We can "squeek" an article in under the radar providing one "exception" (Queen's Service Order) but we will have to ignore other relevant policies and guidelines to provide an exception producing a primary sourced only pseudo biography. --- "OR" --- we can just go with the headcount over !voting. As far as I understand the more broad community consensus is that an improperly sourced BLP does not warrant a stand-alone article. To me this subject does work worthy of notice but what has changed since the last AFD? If there are secondary sources then they should have already been on the article as "adding" more primary sources only makes a subject "look notable".Otr500 (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm just not seeing it. There are easy ways to establish that an academic is notable (and I want to be up front with th efact taht New Zealand is not known for producing cutting-edge research in medicine; having excellent hospitals and medical care: yes; a powerhouse of medical research: no.). What should be there, but is not, is stuff like being on the editorial board of major journals; citations of his article ot show impact; or - and this is one is almost expected in New Zealand but rare in Melbourne, London, or Boston, local/regional press running a feature story on the big-deal medical researcher in their midst. In a tiny country where the hotshot youn researchers immigrate to Australia, Canada or the U.S., they do have to give their annual prizes to somebody. So, I'm a little stunned by how harsh that all as. Don't bother arguing, but if you can Show me the kind of sourcing I described, I'll gladly change my iVote.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:20, 11 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. clpo13_(talk) 00:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jagdish Chandra Natali[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Did get MNZM but that is well down on the list of New Zealand Royal Honours System. Last afd closed keep purely on the strength of that award but since then others have taken a closer look at honours and notability. See User:Necrothesp/Notability criteria for recipients of honours. MNZM falls short of qualifying a recipient for "inherent" notability under WP:ANYBIO #1. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / query The person is listed in New Zealand who's who Aotearoa (2001) but I do not know that reference book. If it's something well-regarded, like Who's Who in New Zealand was, that could bestow notability. Who can say something about that 2001 reference book? Whilst Necrothesp's work is not official, I certainly concur with what is said on that page regarding inherent notability. With MNZM being a second-level service award, that by itself isn't enough. Schwede 66 09:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who in New Zealand is a good source up until the 1991 edition, Wikipedia:Notability (New Zealand people) (proposed). (even the 1991 edition seems a bit removed from the rest) The one Natali is in is from 2001. After 1991 it was taken over/turned into Aotearoa by Alister Taylor who is NOT a reputable publisher, known for soliciting fees for a non existent publication. So not bestowing notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thanks for clarifying the status of the 2001 reference book. I think I had heard that before. For me, that makes this a clear case – notability is not established. Schwede 66 21:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable per nomination NealeFamily (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. Norcaes (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies (see WP:SOFTDELETE). clpo13_(talk) 00:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kayal Raja Muricken[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page has already been deleted once. Nothing new in terms of facts establishing notability or, more importantly, RS, has been added. Having searched the net for references, I am convinced that Kayal Raja Muricken entirely fails to meet notability requirements. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and it is poorly-sourced. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. clpo13_(talk) 00:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bryant Myers[edit]

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

Cannot establish notability for this artist from RS. Previously was a redirect to a song that featured this artist which doesn't seem ideal either. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC as featured on a platinum selling billboard charting song Atlantic306 (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – for the reason given above by Atlantic306. Also appears to satisfy the General Notability Guideline if we accept that El Correo and Infobae are reliable sources and are independent of Myers. —Hebrides (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 19:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Jepson[edit]

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

Delete - Internet searches don't reveal independent in-depth coverage of the subject in published sources. I find only social media, IMDB, and child actor galleries. As such, I assert that the article fails WP:GNG, WP:NPEOPLE and WP:NACTOR. Scottyoak2 (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTFACEBOOK Acnetj (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Acnetj: Inasmuch as AfD is a discussion process, and since the subjects of BLPs are real people; would you be so kind as to explain your position and how you think that this aspect of WP:NOT applies to this article? Thanks, Scottyoak2 (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sourcing fails WP:GNG. Not WP:TOOSOON - she's 21 now and has no appearances in years. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability, coupled with the copyright issues makes this a delete. However, any admin is free to draftify this subject to the "new references" mentioned being unearthed, and removal of copyright violations without having to go to DRV. —SpacemanSpiff 04:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Mashhoor Kunhikoya Thangal[edit]

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

Sorry, but having searched the net for references, I am convinced that Abdullah Mashhoor Kunhikoya Thangal fails to meet notability requirements. There are death notices, true, but so little coverage of his life in reliable third-party sources that we cannot create a bio. page establishing notability. The Scribd work, Mashhoor Mullakoya Thangal and Vadakara, is certainly NOT a RS, as it becomes clear if it is opened. It is merely a eulogy from within the sect. We cannot base the notability of a life on the zeal of a few editors who insist on that notability but don't add RS George Custer's Sabre (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the Scribd sources[13][14] appear to have been uploaded to Scribd by the same person who wrote the Wikipedia article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right, Toddy1. I wish there was an alternative to recommending deletion, but I did look for RS and just could not come up with anything I could use. It currently reads like a page written by a devotee. I tried to bring a neutral tone and to get rid of anecdote and hagiography, but it crept back in. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like a page written by a devotee because most of it was copied almost word-for-word from this document.[15]-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. The creator of this article has emailed me saying that he will add proper citations, though indicating that this may take him/her a few weeks. See User talk:Moosathasleem. If no improvement has been made by the end of May, then delete.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--We delete the article for now and refund to draftspace, once the article gets enough time and resources to source decently.~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and refund, per Godric. Why wait for an improvement that might not happen? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until such time that sufficient sources are added to establish notability and that any potential copyright issues are addressed.--J04n(talk page) 19:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep; no valid deletion rationale has been presented. As noted, being a stub is not a reason to delete an article. All other comments supported keeping the article. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC #1. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Headnote[edit]

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

This has been a stub for a while Lomrjyo (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being a stub for a while is not a valid ground for deletion. As noted in response to the prior PROD, although short, it goes beyond a dicdef, and can grow further. TJRC (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like TJRC said being a stub isn't a valid reason for deletion, it may take a while. We have Prizewinner and it was a stub for a long time and it was never mentioned to be deleted as far as I know. Felicia (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is valid legal stub with potential of expansion once there are editors interested in that. Notability is not absolutely measured by article's state, though bad state of article may indicate something is amiss. See WP:NEXIST, otherwise we would have to delete hundred of thousands articles that have been in stub state for several years. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Headnotes are a part of legal research tools. A quick WP:BEFORE style search shows they are covered in reliable sources like books [16], [17]. It looks like a notable topic per WP:GNG and the article itself has no major problems, hence keep. --Mark viking (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and extract additional info from here: [[18]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons above. This article is in need of improvement, not deletion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've often thought that there might be some synergy in addressing two interrelated pretty sparse articles that each deserve more content, Headnote and Syllabus (legal). In some sense, they overlap; a syllabus in a legal opinion is, in some cases, a collection of headnotes. I'm not quite to he point where I would suggest they be merged, but I'm throwing that out there in case anyone sees a way to improve both with a common effort.

I know the almost invariable rule is that the syllabus/headnotes may not themselves be cited as precedent (as noted in United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.). However, I know it was once (when I started my legal career some 25 years ago) the rule of the Ohio Supreme Court exactly the opposite: the syllabus was an official syllabus prepared by court staff and approved by the court; and set out exactly what the court deemed to be its holding. If a point of law was not in the syllabus, it could not be relied on as precedent. Sometime in the last quarter-century, they changed to the usual practice, but it would be worth noting, especially if there are other jurisdictions that have or had a similar practice. TJRC (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 19:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese in Latin America and the Caribbean[edit]

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

This is an article about a book that does not fulfil the criteria of WP:BK --Caorongjin (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:BK point 1 wants two or more non-trival reviews, which this appears to have: one in the references, one in the further reading. There is also another review here, which is a duplicate from another location. The quality of the article isn't great, but it satisfies the keep requirements. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes criteria 1. of WP:NB. The book is the centre of discussion of main subject in one reference and also got a featured review. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, in addition to the book reviews cited, here are a couple more: in Asian Ethnicity - Book Reviews: The Chinese in Latin America and the Caribbean, edited by Walton Look Lai and Tan Chee-Beng, and in International Review of Social History - Review: Plantations and Labour in the Caribbean in the Long Nineteenth Century, its also well known being held by over 1000 libraries worldwide. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notable per Nosebagbear and Coolabahapple. James500 (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK Atlantic306 (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Esquivalience (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese in Mexico[edit]

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

This is an article about a book that does not fulfil the criteria of WP:BK. --Caorongjin (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reference section includes five reviews of this book. Personally, I would prefer content on this type to be given more context by being included in a larger historical article on Chinese in Mexico, a larger historiographical article on the study of the Chinese in Mexico, or in a biography of the author, Robert Chao Romero, who has no article but who may well have published other things on the same subject or related subjects. Possibly all three. But, failing either of those things, this fulfills criterion #1 of WP:BK. --Hegvald (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Hegvald. They are not casual reviews either, WP:BK definitely covered Nosebagbear (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article clearly satisfies criteria 1. of WP:NB Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, in addition to the book reviews cited, here are a coupe more: in China Review International - The Chinese in Mexico 1882–1940 by Robert Chao Romero, and: Making the Chinese Mexican: Global Migration, Localism, and Exclusions in the U.S.-Mexico Borderlands by Grace Peña Delgado, and: Chinese Mexicans: Transpacific Migration and the Search for a Homeland 1910–1960 by Julia María Schiavone Camacho (review), and in Bulletin of Latin American Research - Book Review: The Chinese in Mexico, 1882–1940 ‐ by Chao Romero, Robert, and its pretty well known being held by around 520 libraries around the world. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: It would be more good if you add these to the article too. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 15:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly fits WP:NBOOK--Jaldous1 (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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