Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 13: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:04, 13 May 2018

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 12 May	14 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The God File

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

Article, written more like something approaching an original research critical essay rather than a proper encyclopedia article, about a novel whose author does not have a WP:BLP, and which does not have a strong or properly sourced claim to passing WP:NBOOK. As always, every literary award that exists at all is not an automatic free pass that exempts a novel from having to be the subject of reliable source coverage in media -- the extent to which a literary award counts as a notability claim is strictly coterminous with the extent to which media cover the granting of that award as news. But the only source here for the "Independent Publisher Book Award" is the award's own self-published website about itself, not independent third party coverage in media, and there are no other valid sources being cited to get it over WP:GNG any other way: the only other citation present here at all is a book review on a user-generated public relations blog for independent authors, not a real recognized source of professional critical reviews. And overall, the article is written more like a critical essay, possibly trending into original research given the lack of quality sourcing to support the motifs and themes and character analysis. The sourcing here simply isn't cutting the mustard, and nothing stated in the body text is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to cut mustard. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not take the lack of a Wikipedia article about the author to be evidence in favor of deletion. However, the nominator's point about the minor award is apt. An award that is not discussed by reliable independent sources is also not evidence of notability. The lack of professional reviews is the most important reason to delete, and amateur analysis by Wikipedia editors cannot make up for that shortcoming. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article created and developed by two WP:SPAs to summarise the contents of a novel. The book was published by MacAdam/Cage and republished as an e-book by Dzanc Books, indicating some selectivity. However I don't see the brief Kirkus Review note and the already discussed review on "The BookReporter" site as sufficient for WP:NBOOK criterion 1, or the 2003 Independent Publisher Book Award as sufficient for criterion 2. AllyD (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, as above, the bookreporter, kirkus reviews, and award aren't enough, a gsearch has brought up nothing else. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAgree that this seems like original research.--Jaldous1 (talk) 23:05, 17 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of films about outer space

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

Unreferenced. Although it specifically excludes non-notable films, it is still very long and likely to be grossly incomplete. I found no evidence of a comprehensive list online, but there are a number of "best" lists with this scope such as [1]. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We cannot legitimately delete a list of things, all with internal links, just on the grounds that it is unreferenced. The references are in these internal links! While the list is probably currently incomplete, it will eventually gain more and more titles. And there are no comprehensive list online because this is the comprehensive list, made in a period of 13 years by the power of voluntary contributions, which no one else will be able to make. Emass100 (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we can, per WP:BURDEN alone. Lists too will need to be referenced. WP:LONGTIME is not an argument. Wikipedia is not about WP:EVERYTHING soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Science-fiction is a big aspect of many people's lives. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if true, that's not an argument. We're discussing List of films about outer space, not science fiction. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above comments. The topic is fine. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The two above comments are both WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fundamentally, its a duplication of the Category:Films set in outer space and its subcategories. Some attempts have been made to add notes of significance, but the notes don't tend to amount to more than trivia unrelated to the reason those items were included in the list. -- Netoholic @ 22:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename List of films set in outer space. It probably needs to be split up into sublists, e.g. List of films set on Mars, List of films set on the Moon, List of films set on space stations, etc., as there are a lot more than are listed, but that's a separate issue. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are literally hundreds of films that could be catergorised as being "about outer space". There does not appear to be any clear inclusion criteria. I concur with Clarifyfiend that the list might be suitable in subcategories but I don't support the article as it is. Ajf773 (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. Is 2001: A Space Odyssey "about" outer space? Is Spaceballs? The Star Wars films? I beg to differ: these science fiction films are set in outer space, they're not about outer space. Trivial nonsense, not encyclopedic. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable list which makes clear that it includes films about as well as set in outer space, no need to refbomb it as there are plenty of confirming refs on the linked articles. It is also popular with the public with an average of 570 page views a day. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refbomb? It hasn't got a single reference. What's the point, the encyclopedic value of having the list? It has no information whatsoever, beyond the fact that certain films are set in outer space. "X in Y" is not informative. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overly broad list, per WP:LISTCRUFT. It's unclear what "about outer space" actually means. Set in outer space? Mentioning it? For what portion of the run time? Seems arbitrary. For example, I'd argue that Alien is about an alien and the main character's fight to survive, not about outer space. Battlestar Galactica is about a ship's attempts to flee genocidal robots, not outer space._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarity. wumbolo ^^^ 11:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another non-argument: how does WP:CLARITY apply here? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans: was referring to this not WP:CLARITY. wumbolo ^^^ 13:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, @Wumbolo, I didn't put those two together. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Soetermans is WP:BLUDGEON-ing every single "keep" vote. wumbolo ^^^ 13:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely true, I didn't comment on Clarityfriend's vote. I don't see the benefit in their proposal, but it's not an unsubstantiated vote based upon personal preference. I've seen plenty of deletion discussions where the closer didn't look at arguments, but on a vote count (keep because "Science-fiction is a big aspect of many people's lives"? C'mon). Feel free to engage my other comments though! soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to category, misleading (films set in space aren't "about" space, much like films set on Earth aren't "about" Earth"). Sandstein 10:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Perhaps editors participating in this debate could answer the question whether the concept of "films about outer space" is notable or not. If it is, this list should be kept. If it isn't, this is listcruft.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I notice there's a Category:Films set in outer space with subcategories. I'm pretty sure even trying to present a list of films set in outer space will present WP:DIRECTORY. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this list should be a category. In fact, there IS a category: Category:Films about outer space Vadder (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I have seen actually potentially useful lists get quickly deleted because they are "just lists". This is a list with no clear criteria for inclusion and no informative value.
Delete, specifically because of the word "about". These films are not about outer space, they take place there. Netoholic said it first and said it best. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 18:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily defined topic and having a category of the same name, is not a valid rationale for deletion. The "about" vs. "takes place in" is taken care of in name change, no deletion. References can be easily migrated from the main articles. --RAN (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see why a page is needed when a category exists.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 05:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- there doesn't seem to be a useful reason to replicate the category, the list is extraordinarily crufty, and the whole concept hinges on the ambiguity between films that are set in space and films in which space is the major focus. Reyk _YO! 10:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I think I've seen enough. I wanted a bit more discussion about sources, but I think it's clear that more discussion probably isn't going to help things along, and the atmosphere of the discussion is devolving. The consensus is that significant coverage exists about this topic in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. Mz7 (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1Lib1Ref

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

Unless and until, Google is playing up, I (with with my limited access to certain American libraries), am not seeing an iota of decent non-trivial coverage in reliable sources.

Some of the current sources (including ) belong(s) to WMF and whilst providing accurate information about the event, are non-independent and consequently do not lead to passage of any notability. A blog source, though hosted on diglib.org is written by a Wikipedian, to promote the event and whilst usable, fails to establish the rigor of passage of notability. Two of the remaining sources, from library-associations, are (largely) event-circulars which fails to prove anything beyond the existence of the event. One is a library-blog covering about how a few enthusiasts did participate in it, which seems to have been written after some gentle prodding by the organizers.......

Barring a lone NPR source, I did not manage to retrieve anything (other than unreliable blogzines et al) that covers the event significantly and that proves the notability of the event beyond the circle of WP editors.~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets GNG; the nom needs to find a better search engine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Andy, you ought to do better.Sources, please.......~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is notable and significant events affecting it are notable. It's not unreasonable for an encyclopedia to lean towards covering its own history, as long as it does so in a neutral and verifiable way. --agr (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm notable.....My parents are notable.....All the teachers who taught me in my montessori are notable....My brother's would-be grand-childrens' spouses are notable....Are you fucking serious?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And, we can certainly cover our own history, as much as we like, in the Wikipedia namespace.~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Winged Blades of Godric: I get that you disagree, but it is unnecessary to use aggressive language in order to make your point. Mz7 (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while borderline, there's enough coverage and/or mentions out there for me. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] (Also, there's nothing in policy that prevents us from covering notable on-wiki events.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ed, that's a straw-man.Unless and until you wish to state that you are in favor of bending our notability guidelines for covering on-wiki events, your last line is nonsensical.And, well routine mentions of an event do not make notability.But, then again, it's insanely difficult to delete any article about WP from WP, provided iy has garnered some specks of scattered mentions here and there.03:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winged Blades of Godric (talk • contribs)
Keep Not that super-notable subject, but I believe this is notable more than thousands of professional footballers stub that we host. Also found this Magazine's coverage substantive. –Ammarpad (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You have been a pretty decent participant at AfDs to know that other stuff/crap exists and that it's almost always a non-argument.And, we surely disagree about the significance of the source as to lending the subject a credible passage of GNG.~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, could this be a redirect to the libraries wikiproject? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not having continued coverage. All sources can be construed as announcing a near-future 1Lib1Ref (and maybe mentioning the last one), and very short-term post-event coverage. wumbolo ^^^ 13:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Speedy without prejudice...... per WP:SNOWBALL. VitalPower | talk 19:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment: The discussion is definitely leaning towards keep based on a head-count of voters, but I would appreciate just a bit more discussion centered around the sources available to solidify a consensus. Mz7 (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added two sources, one from a local news coverage. Getting local news coverage for an international event makes it more significant. Emass100 (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just want to ping Merrilee, Ocaasi, and Sadads. They have likely seen this discussion but abstained from participating thus far (wisely, IMO), but also probably have the best sense of how much coverage there has been of 1lib1ref. As such, it would probably help discussion to know if there sources that Ed, et al. missed so far in this discussion? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What makes their views more important than the views of people who commented above? –Ammarpad (talk) 07:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ammarpad: I created the campaign :P I have been watching the page for a while -- and would argue that it's notable -- its increasingly showing up in long-term scholarly pieces about the relationship of libraries and Wikipedia (see for example this Google search and discussion of the campaign is showing up in a number of more long-term publications (i.e. this coverage. However, because of my Conflict of Interest -- I am not going to place a vote in the concensus. Sadads (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to give the impression their opinions were "more important." They have the good sense not to jump in with a !vote here, but as people directly involved with 1lib1ref, I figured they may be able to save the rest of us some time/effort as we try to search for sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Murphy (journalist)

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

I cannot identify any chunk of work devoting any significant treatment to this person. There are a handful of news sources indicating the Polk award but I didn't see anything related to an Emmy award from a secondary source. Certainly, nothing providing a full bio (or several) of any sort.

Additionally, a user claiming to be the subject has previously attempted to WP:PROD the article.

Am happy to end up with e.g. a redirect to the Polk awards list, but that doesn't strike me as necessary. This should be deleted per the WP:GNG. Izno (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet inclusion guidelines and subject seems not to want to be included. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:54, 21 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 per WP:SNOW. – Joe (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Cheney (scientist)

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

Seems like a run-of-the-mill researcher with no evidence of meeting WP:NACADEMIC criteria for inclusion. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Member of National Academy is an immediate pass of WP:PROF#C3 (unsurprisingly she also passes #C1), and nominating a member for deletion marks such a total lack of understanding of academic notability as to render the nominator unqualified for such edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:PROF#C3. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - WP:SNOWBALL Case, per WP:PROF#C3. VitalPower | talk 20:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep with 32,000 cites on GS. I suggest consideration of a ban on this editor making further AfD nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
keep i got lost in reading her multiple achievements and the list of publications is impressive. Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without any doubt, as a member of the National Academy of Sciences. I advise the nominator to refrain from any further ridiculous, disruptive and time-wasting AfD nominations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How ever could there be any doubt about this?--Ipigott (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep with a prediction of WP:SNOW. Minimal googling revealed article in NYT citing her (added to article) and a recent one in Smithsonian Magazine.^[1] Also, there should be a disambiguation page, because currently Dorothy Cheney goes to an article about a tennis player. Also, her husband and collaborator, also in PNAS, deserves an article of his own, IMO. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Abhat, Divya (February 28, 2017). "Baboons Are Ruthless Reproducers". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved May 13, 2018. For decades Cheney has documented infanticide in baboons in Botswana, where the behavior accounts for at least 50 percent of all infant deaths.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The "keep" opinion is unconvincing. "Unremarkable" is indeed a reason for deletion if this means that no reliable sources have remarked on the topic, which means we have no sources on which to base a verifiable article. Sandstein 12:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I-O Data

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable electronics manufacturer. Significant RS coverage not found; the sources presented at the last AfD are not convincing. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH.

First AfD closed as no consensus in Aug 2017. NCORP has been tightened since then, so it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep "Unremarkable" isn't a valid reason for deletion. Looking at the Japanese article, this is a company of sufficient size and revenue that they would pass WP:N. They might not be well known, famous or particularly innovative, but we don't set our notability bar that high. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable; trivial. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. PR piece without depth. Kierzek (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R ⁺ 04:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In the first AfD, User:Michitaro unearthed a slew of ostensibly good references for the article; none of those have been added in the subsequent ~10 months. If Michitaro (or another Japanese speaker) would re-examine those sources and (if they're any good) work them into the article, this could be a WP:HEY situation. A Train^talk 22:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment: I did not find the sources from the first AfD compelling; that's why I nominated the article. In any case, nearly a year since the first AfD is plenty of chances. It's time to let this articles go. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NExpress

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

An article about a system combining the libraries of several colleges that appears to not itself be notable. I can find no coverage outside of websites belonging to it or its member colleges. Fails WP:GNG. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any information on any of this, their own website is hacked/unrelated to the topic by this point. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. There's no real consensus here, but moving this to draft seems like a reasonable compromise, and WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jalen McDaniels

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

A search engine returns results primarily related to his statistics, plus two sources mentioning the draft. Per WP:NCOLLATH, a college athlete is only notable if they have gained significant attention from the media or have won a significant award, and I'm not seeing that either of these is the case. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep In addition to the sources that mention him declaring for the draft, I was able to find this, this, and this. Not a ton of coverage, but probably enough to pass GNG barely. His brother is a top recruit btw. If the consensus here is to delete, I propose userfying the article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that I have would support moving to draft/userspace as well. While I maintain that he isn't currently notable, Wikipedia has lower standards for professional players. I imagine he will be notable in the near future; this article is just too soon. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per above. There are just enough independent sources to justify keeping. With his entry into the draft, he is likely to have many more in the near future anyway.--TM 10:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has not even played in one professional game and his collegiate career is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to draft per TOOSOON. Hasn't played a minute on the professional level. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial cpverage in reliable independent sources. Was a star in high school. Has made some waves in college. And is expected be drafted by a pro team. All covered extensively. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to user space/draftify - I was going to be a weak keep but saw this in the paper[[8]]. From the article, he's a skinny 6-foot-10 forward who averaged 10.5 points and 7.5 rebounds last season, has started just 21 college games, weighs under 190 pounds, wasn’t named to the first, second or third all-conference teams in the middling Mountain West, wasn’t among the 69 players (including four from the Mountain West) invited to the NBA Draft combine in Chicago next week and doesn’t appear in any mock drafts. It's WP:TOOSOON, but I suspect that whatever happens on May 30th at the draft declaration deadline, he'll get more coverage and we can revisit. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per WP:BLPDELETE and as a WP:ARBAP2 discretionary sanction, this article is speedily deleted and salted, and may not be recreated unless an admin determines, via WP:AFC or otherwise, that a draft exists that meets minimal levels of WP:BLP-compliant sourcing and editorial competence.

As I indicated in my first speedy deletion of this article, a WP:BLP article with contentious material requires proper sourcing in the form of footnotes. It is insufficient to just throw a pile of external links at the bottom of the article; rather, any sources must be cited in a footnote adjacent to the material they back up; otherwise readers have no realistic chance to verify whether any given statement is true. See generally WP:V, Wikipedia:Citing sources#Footnotes.

This is not a determination about notability, and if the article is recreated, it may still be brought back to AfD for reasons of notability or other reasons. Sandstein 19:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Sadler

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

A clear case of WP:BLP1E, that event being a provocative comment about John McCain in a White House meeting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is true that many people first heard of her because of her comment. However, she was a regular reporter of Bloomberg for almost 3 years. Other reporters are allowed articles (for example, see Scott Baker or Rich Benjamin). Just because she put her foot in her mouth does not disqualify her. Another reason for the article is that there is widespread reporting over many, many countries. That makes her notable because of lots of reliable sources covering her. That makes it 2 reasons. Finally, 1 event is permitted (even though Sadler is a 2 event person). Look at one event people, like Lenny Skutnik, Marwan al-Shehhi, Yavor Hristov, Anna Harrison and Amanda Knox. Finally, this article is not an attack on Trump so Trump supporters don't have to try to delete this article. Cowdung Soup (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there is substantially more to this person than the one obnoxious statement. If there is then we need to see that added to the article ASAP, and with solid RS references. If not, and we have an article about the Trump camp's feud with McCain, then maybe it can be mentioned there, very briefly, but certainly not in a separate BLP. We don't want a separate BLP for every minor participant in the myriad of undignified feuds that seems to comprise a large part of American "politics" these days. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was a moderately well known (not hugely famous) Bloomberg reporter for nearly 3 years. Other reporters qualify for Wikipedia articles, even local ones. Cowdung Soup (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a great example of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Does not pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 18:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greatly exceeds WP:GNG. I have seen over 60 citations on her. That well exceeds GNG. Cowdung Soup (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is much more to WP:GNG than the number of citations. SportingFlyer talk 18:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. The citations must be reliable, like the New York Times and BBC. She has those. Cowdung Soup (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Albert Crampton

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

Fails WP:GNG. Currently unsourced with only one link on the entire page, and other searches bring up very little, or references to different doctors of the same name (not the same since they lived in the mid-20th century.) Also fails WP:NPOL on the mayoral position. SportingFlyer talk 17:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Per nomination. VitalPower | talk 19:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- unless I'm missing something here, the article doesn't even make sense. Why would the Internal Revenue Bureau have a chief chemist?--Rusf10 (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the IRS probably had a chief chemist to look into trariffs on chmeicals. That doesn't make him pass WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep for now. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IBM New York Scientific Center

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

Astonishingly non-notable. This has been a stub for almost fourteen years! In that time, nobody has apparently found anything to say about it. My own searching, surprisingly, came up with very little. A bunch of mentions here and there, a few wiki-mirrors, but nothing substantial on which to base WP:NCORP or any other notability standard I'm aware of. I'm actually hoping people will find enough sources that I can withdraw this nomination, since it seems like the kind of thing that should be notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my nomination per Cowdung Soup, but the clock is ticking. I've got a calendar event for July 14th to renominate this. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No citation, not notable. Acnetj (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Request hold I just called an IBM retiree and was told that that place was big stuff, but due to the era, most of the mention of the place is in print, not online. If the nominator agrees to withdraw the delete nomination for 60 days, I am willing to get this information. Cowdung Soup (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in part due to a delete !vote that remains present in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now given the information by Cowdung Soup. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, given the assertion that reliable sources exist. Smartyllama (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — F R ⁺ 04:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Ranken

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her work with Test Dept and DV8 would both swing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "Associate artist" at Royal Shakespeare Company recognises "artists who have made an outstanding contribution to the life and reputation of our work", and widespread other coverage, some under full name of "Elizabeth Ranken". PamD 11:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as above Wpgbrown (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has been substantially improved since nomination and is now supported by several secondary sources.--Ipigott (talk) 09:34, 17 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. SOFTDELETE per no input from other users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shri mamasaheb deshpande

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

Fails WP:GNG article created by a WP:SPA editor. All the sources are affiliated and nothing of interest found in a WP:BEFORE search Dom from Paris (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chihiro Hara

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions. The awards listed are for the videos Hara appeared in and / or are scene related. Being ranked in a distributor's poll is not a valid claim of significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 20:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wikitigresito (talk) 07:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic Saturation

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

Non-notable band. The article was crated as a band article in 2013, coincidentally at the time they released their album. There has been on edit to text and no assertion of notability has been made since. Emeraude (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Harrison, Lord of Gobion's Manor

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

Wikipedia is not a genealogy forum. This article refers to an individual who is wholly non notable. Contrary to what the article says, he was not Lord Harrison or a noble, probably a mere gentleman. Some of his descendants may well be very notable, but he does not "inherit" notability from them. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERIT. Apparently a distant relative of Benjamin Harrison, but he has no independent notability. Gobion's Manor doesn't appear to be significant either. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; lacks significant coverage. Just a genealogy entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec athletes at international level

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

No evidence of importance of this article. VitalPower | talk 15:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Title is clearly not going to work, but a "list of athletes from Quebec" that retains just the notable examples would be pretty standard, and I don't see an equivalent in Category:Lists of people from Quebec. At very least it should be selectively merged into List of people from Quebec (again, notable examples only). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, in particular lumping multiple sporting codes into one article. Ajf773 (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article looks like a collection of statistics which violates WP:NOTSTATSBOOK.Knobbly (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Vela

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

While a working actress, simply doesn't meet the criteria as per wp:nactor. Similarly, while she has had some press, all of the in-depth coverage is in regards to her dating Sutherland. Notability is not inherited. Absent that coverage, not enough in-depth coverage to show she passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately all her roles appear to be minor or are in minor productions, therefore fails WP:NACTOR. Article can be recreated should she land more prominent roles in notable productions. Hzh (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of thousands of low information articles we have on people who never had a significant role in a notable production. Wikipedia is drowining at present in articles on minor actors that are essentially filmographies with birth and death dates of the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's just enough sources to pass GNG. I found some articles about her on Newspapers.com in addition to what's in the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this passes GNG, especially after the Newspapers.com sources were found. I added a few more into the article. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I am only saying a strong keep as I am supprised you want to delete this article... helloooo, WP:GNG?!. --VitalPower | talk 15:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NACTOR, and dating Kiefer Sutherland fails WP:NOTINHERIT. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly does not meet the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR guidelines. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 23:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Barely passes GNG with sources present. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is coverage of her from before she started dating Kiefer Sutherland related both to her modelling career and as an actress in the viral video Exhibit B-5. She played the title role in a movie which won best feature film at the Boston Film Festival. I believe she meets the notability requirements. Million_Moments (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see why pages about her in relation to Kiefer Sutherland should be discounted. WP:NOTINHERIT states, "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." This article passes WP:GNG for significant discussion in secondary sources. Lonehexagon (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North Kern Golf Course

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

Not notable public golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chongqing No.68 Middle School

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

Non notable middle school. Unsourced and no claims of significance or importance. Was first PRODed but redirected per policy recommendations to its locality, but the redirect was reverted without discussion by the the creator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Middle school with no indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no claim to notability. Also, WP:MACHINETRANSLATION as the exact text is obtainable from the Chinese language Wikipedia. Jack N. Stock (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Or, if the creator proises not to pish about with it, redirect per WP:ATD. But if they won't, we have to remove the opportunity to do so. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, probably speedy material both G11 and G12, per Jack's finding that it's an exact machine translation from Chinese Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only marginal claim to notability is statement "one of the ten most influential middle schools in Chongqing", but claim of being influential isn't demonstrated nor qualified as to how it's influential. Regardless of quality of the claim, the entire article is unsourced, failing to substantiate the claim. The article for the city also lists three middle schools (including this one) in section labelled "Notable middle school and high schools", but notability is likewise unsourced there, so if article is deleted, recommend removing mention from that article as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have supported REDIRECT but Since the REDIRECT per policy has been made into article again hence suggesting delete. Notability not eshtablished and unable to find it either. --DBig Xray 16:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable middle school. Meatsgains^(talk) 18:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW VitalPower | talk 20:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - read through the Chinese wikipedia article as a native Chinese reader and speaker, that article if using English wikipedia policies will be a straight G11. --Quek157 (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, my reading of the Chinese one is on the zh, zh-ch (classical one) if applied here is an A1. --Quek157 (talk) 21:55, 13 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. The only deletion argument besides the nomination is citing BLP for a subject that has been dead since the war. A Train^talk 10:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corny Ostermann

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

Unable to find any source for anything written about subject other than extremely brief discography references; no notability; no sources provided by article creator at time of creation or after seven months of waiting for something to justify the article's retention Sirlanz 13:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Some refs. can be found on Google Books. Though I'm not sure, if they are sufficient to pass notability. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DNB entry should be enaugh https://portal.dnb.de/opac.htm?method=simpleSearch&cqlMode=true&query=nid%3D1061343367 - The above referenced books have a common theme of someone having worked with Corny Osterman with confers (real world) notability to these musicians due to fact that they have worked with someone more important. Agathoclea (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:ANYBIO #3 Agathoclea (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hung verdict
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — F R ⁺ 04:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced WP:BLP which makes no claim of notability. Internet searches don't find anything significant, though admittedly that may not be definitive as he was declared dead 69 years ago. The DNB link above doesn't work for me, but in any case a musician working with a more famous musician doesn't confer notability. Neiltonks (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood. Notability was confered the other way (real world notability - not wiki notability) . The available book material also uses him as a prime example for the music style in the period. DNB lists his death in 1945 which would match with being declared dead later. So definetly no BLP. Agathoclea (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article about Ostermann in a German encyclopedia of jazz musicians by Jürgen Wölfer (now in article). The Discogs entry (now in article) is documenting 7 shellacs under his name; at least 4 titles are re-edited. --Engelbaet (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The article is unlikely to grow beyond a few sentences unless some researcher discovers and publishes more biographical details. The content, even with additions, is so sparse that merger into Jazz_in_Germany#Years_of_National_Socialism,_the_1930s_and_the_missing_1940s could be an option. However while Discogs falls under WP:NOTRSMUSIC, the fact that the subject's music, created under conditions of official disapproval and mentioned specifically in that context, has been re-issued many years after his death and that he has entries at various biographical indices suggests enough for WP:BASIC notability. AllyD (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Make into disambiguation page. Sandstein 10:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Illyrian Shepherd

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

This is just a former name of the Šarplaninac (and Karst Shepherd) dog breeds. I see no reason to have two articles on the same dog breed just because the official name has been changed. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I dont agree with the NOM to delete this, the reason is not sufficient for a deletion. After an independent careful searching on WP:RS as well as sites, I have come to the concluson that Illyrian Shepherd is an ancestor to the 2 distinct modern breeds Šarplaninac and Karst Shepherd based on this and Fédération Cynologique Internationale (FCI) data. The difference is nomencalture of the last two dogs is simply based on the region where they developed. Šarplaninac in Yugoslavia and Karst Shepherd in Slovenia. These 2 modern breeds are notable and distinct article on their own, per the WP:RS FCI. The common name of the dog breed In Yugoslavia is Šarplaninac. FCI Šarplaninac [9] and [10] And FCI Karst Shepherd in Slovenia. So I suggest creating a Disambiguation at this location with redirects to Šarplaninac and Karst Shepherd. Illyrian Shepherd is a candidate for redirect, but both the articles can be the destination based on the country, since it is an ancestor to both these breeds. I propose creating a Disambiguation page on the current location of Illyrian Shepherd

Illyrian Shepherd in Yugoslavia REDIRECTS to Šarplaninac
Illyrian Shepherd in Slovenia REDIRECTS to Karst Shepherd--DBig Xray 16:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: Slovenia was, in fact, part of Yugoslavia. I basically agree with you, but the wording should be changed. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since FCI calls these 2 names, different breed both with a common ancestor, so the 2 new articles should be treated as distinct, so this is no longer a debate. As regard to Illyrian Shepherd, I think disambiguate is the best course of action. Vanjagenije So what is your proposal ? wording should be changed to what ? --DBig Xray 23:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your proposal to turn the article into a disambiguation page, exact wording can be decided later. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the agreement. Yes, I am open to any copy edit of the phrase in my proposal. --DBig Xray 21:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — F R ⁺ 04:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mall of Switzerland

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

No evidence of notability. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep. Quick serch on Google shows notability. --VitalPower | talk 12:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've been trying to improve the article by cleaning it up and adding sources. The sources are not very reliable, but they show that the mall is notable enough that websites other than their personal one mention the mall.--SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 13:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Performed Google Search. Covered by Neue Luzerner Zeitung, Blick, Swissinfo and Radio Pilatus. I think, It meets the notability. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With 150 stores the second biggest in Switzerland. Even small malls like Richti Wallisellen exist on Wikipedia. Must be improved. --Netpilots (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a shopping mall. More appropriate for travel guides and advertising circulars. Not really suitable for an encyclopedia. Cowdung Soup (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are hundreds of just Shopping Malls in Wikipedia. Most Malls are much smaller than the Mall of Switzerland. This is one more reason for the notability. --Netpilots (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's certainly not the best article ever, but in my opinion it's notable enough for Wikipedia. The "biggest shopping mall in Central Switzerland" seems like an important topic to me, and there are many, many shopping mall articles that exist that seem to be a lot less notable. And if you search harder across the Internet, you'll notice that there are in fact a lot of independent sources about this mall.--SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 22:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meet with notability but stub needed. There are lots of evidence I founded on Google News. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 17:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The biggest mall in central Switzerland is evidence of notability. As others have pointed out, very in-depth coverage exists. And nominating this article for AfD within an hour of creation [11] is bad form. --Oakshade (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Although there are a mix of keep and delete arguments, none of the arguments shows any substantial coverage from reliable sources for this original game, nor gives any other substantial argument for notability. Therefore consensus is that this topic is non-notable. There are sources for a sequel, which seems likely notable. Should anyone ask, I will gladly restore this content to a user sandbox per Izno so that the verbiage can be used as background for the notable topic (the sequel). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We Were Here (game)

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

Non-notable video game. The extent of the (reliable) coverage is an article in Rock Paper Shotgun and an interview at Gamasutra. Not enough to pass notability criteria. The sequel doesn't either, only getting a serious mention from PC Gamer and Adventure Gamers. Being forced to combine 2 games together to make them notable is not a very good sign that it is fit for Wikipedia. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether Wikipedia should be inclusive or exclusive. I vote inclusive. The article does no harm to people not interested in the game. And people who are interested in the game can find out more about the game and its creators. I suspect it is harder for a Dutch game to attract a following than it would be for an American game, and harder for an indie game to attract a following than for a routine game by a big game company. "We Were Here" has won one award and been nominated for a couple of others. Why not give it a chance? Rick Norwood (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Give it a chance" suggests that if you put it on Wikipedia, it will become more notable. That goes against WP:NOTADVERTISING. The game should already be notable before an article gets made. I have no prejudice against recreation if one of the games is mentioned more in reliable sources, but currently both games are not individually notable on their own. The sequel has a number of reviews, but none of them seem to come from trusted outlets._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We Were Here Too reviews from the WP:VG/S list: PCGamer, Gamer.nl, Aventure Gamers, Just Adventure, and a number of other announcements and other coverage. Seems reasonably notable. We Were Here actually does not. Probably needs a rework to be predominantly about the sequel game. Keep generally. --Izno (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This page has virtually nothing about the sequel. Would that not be a "Delete" this as non-notable with no prejudice towards creating an article about We Were Here Too?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suggested draftifying another recently in a similar circumstance, but that was two entirely disparate items (a company and its video game). The two topics here are likely to be significantly similar. I'd rather save the history and verbiage so someone else can take up the "rewrite this to be about the sequel" predominantly (and likely with a subsequent move). --Izno (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually had asked this some time ago on the VG project after searching sources; the sequel got some attention that could be GNG notable but not the first, though the first is alluded to in the discussion of the sequel. To that end I was thinking this is the type of game better covered as a series article, both games fully discussed (not separate) in this series article, since there's no way the first game can survive as a standalone. So either have a standalone page for "We Were Here Too" that mentions the first game, or a series page for "We Were Here", but we can't have a standalone "We Were Here" game page. --Masem (t) 13:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the demonstrated RS coverage above. Phediuk (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. --VitalPower | talk 12:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete the sequel appears notable due to the reviews, but I can't find if it has a page on the site. This page is promotional and unsourced and sourcing is weak - it does not pass WP:GNG and is arguably promotional in nature, and it does not inherit notability from the successful sequel. An article on the series would likely be notable. SportingFlyer talk 17:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing sourced to "keep". No prejudice against an article about the sequel if the sourcing exists. But yeah even that's a stretch—I wouldn't consider Adventure Gamers reliable (or Just Adventure, for that matter) (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 02:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the sequel and/or series is notable, write an article on that, but this isn't notable. Also, the text here doesn't seem very useful, though if someone wants it to write an article on the series no opposition to userification. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments to keep have failed to rebut User:Winged Blades of Godric's analysis of the sources. A Train^talk 07:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neel Bhattacharya

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

Film 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:ACTORBIO. The subject has appeared in only one notable film ( brief appearance). Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person either so fails GNG. Saqib (talk) 07:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Male lead in several notable television series, including one in which he won an award. Although just barely IMO, he does meet the criteria in WP:ACTORBIO. -- œ^™ 07:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@OlEnglish: The award is not notable enough, at least by WP standards because it does not have its own standalone page. And I think, both TV shows have no national audience therefore I don't see thier significance. --Saqib (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think they have no national audience? -- œ^™ 21:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--As a native speaker of the language I can confirm that whilst the channel and it's shows has a state-specific audience, the awards ceremony, which is organized by the brodcasting channel, is typical PR Stuff and has zero significance.A few (2) interviews in Bengali entertainment tabloids are located but they do contribute nothing to notability.TOOSOON.~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Male lead of 2 very notable Bangali television serials in premiere Indian channel ZEE(Bangla). The language medium of the channel being Bengali, is ofcourse watched by people who understand the language that includes people originating from West Bengal in India(spread across the world) and the entire country of Bangladesh. Some shows cater to people speaking a regional language. But Bengalis are present all over the world and the show is watched internationally as well on ZEE(Bangla) USA.The credibility of the Awards Ceremony can be found from many resources on the web.^[1] ^[2]

The awards show certainly has its own website where the whole telecast is present. But it is meant for India's national audience. ^[3]Other interviews in the media identifies him as the television heartthrob of Bengal. Please translate page. ^[4]. Also a facebook verified public figure as can be seen from the official page: https://www.facebook.com/Neeltjls/. There are many more articles in Bengali press and bengali media which do not appear directly on Google search because Bengali font being used. ^[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayoni15 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

NOTE: User:Shayoni15 is creator of the BLP

And, obviously, the sources aren't editorially independent:--
Essel is the parent-corporation of the Zee-Channels.Anyways, that's a press-release, about sponsors et al and I fail to see any relevancy of it.

OZEE is ZEE's digital broadcast medium.And another irrelevant reference.No body is denying that the award-show did not take place or that the subject wasn't awarded.....

TellyDhamal is clear-cut unreliable source, with no known editorial policy.I'm quasi-certain that a RSN discussion has deemed it to be unreliable.

TOI's ever decreasing editorial integrity continues........(Seriously, who writes This unique family of Zee Bangla has strengthened its relationship with the audiences with every new endeavor. Zee Bangla Sonar Sansar Awards marks the culmination of this journey, filled with love, trust and friendship that has created an everlasting bond.).......The more I'm seeing TOI's coverage in these arenas, the more I'm getting certain about it's new grown love for churnalism.

As to the Ananda Bazar piece, one of the two interviews, mentioned in my above !vote.See WP:INTERVIEW.Fails to establish encyclopedic notability.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-As a native speaker of Bengali and a resident of West Bengal, I cannot find any fault with what Winged Blades of Godric has said. — F R ⁺ 15:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Rather than question the quality of journalism, which is a whole new topic altogether, I would like to emphasize on a few points.

According to WIKIPEDIA, WP:BASIC is met if multiple published sources, reliable,intellectually independent, independent of the subject are available, which can be found in references listed in the article. As WIKIPEDIA also states that for an actor, meeting WP:ENT or WP:GNG might be enough for consideration of notability. Neel Bhattacharya definitely meets WP:ENT. WP:ENT allows that notability may be considered if the actor has"had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" but does not mandate that the subject must also always meet the GNG. In this case, the subject has indeed done lead roles in multiple Bengali Soap Operas, invited as celebrity guest of honour in reality shows, and was part of a couple of Bengali movies, in one of which he has played the main protagonist. Again, according to WIKIPEDIA, Notability is not always a contest to see who is more popular in press. notability does not always depend the depth of coverage of the topic or the individual, nor that it be immediately available online. Having said that, there are multiple press articles listed in the reference section of the page which shows notability of the subject. Subject, being notable in a field where the language is a regional one, coverage is done mostly in Bengali media. Hence some articles do not immediately come up in google search owing to the Bengali font being used in those articles. But according to WIKIPEDIA rules, that shouldnt mean that subject is any less notable. WIKIPEDIA states failing GNG does not exclude him as long as the career is itself properly verified in reliable sources.Here the subject might be partially failing GNG but still meets ENT as there are multiple verifiable resouces establishing his involvement in multiple TV shows.

Subject meets WP:BASIC, WP:ENT and WP:GNG partly - and should receive consideration for inclusion in WIKIPEDIA as one of the leading Bengali Television Soap Opera Male Leads of current times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayoni15 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Note to closing admin: Shayoni15 is the creator of the article and has already !voted above. This vote should thus be considered null and void...[reply]

Keep passes WP:NACTOR leading roles in two tv series and one film, has sig coverage, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic306-Could you please flesh out your comment for the benefit of the readers. I would also like you to read [this comment of TonyBalloni].Thanks — F R ⁺ 07:55, 28 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. As this is a BLP, it would be good if User:Duffbeerforme's references could make their way into the article. A Train^talk 07:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Whittington

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

I'm not sure what to make of this. It's a long-standing article about a guitarist that doesn't appear to have any evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO criteria for inclusion. I looked at a couple of his YouTube videos, and yes, he's good, but is he notable? The article, with all of its name-dropping and playing in gigs that "opened for" more notable bands, and ~~briefly~~ playing with one notable band (probably the subject's only legitimate claim of notability, which doesn't quite meet WP:MUSICBIO), gives this article the impression of a WP:GARAGE attempt, but without the hype. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I share the sentiments of the nominator. The contested article's main contributors, besides its creator, were notified in case they can provide material supporting the subject's notability. -The Gnome (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Unfortunately, the main contributors no longer appear to be active on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a little familiar with the article's subject. It pains me to say it, but I'm not aware of him fully meeting any of the individual criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. He is just under the bar for several: important member of one notable ensemble (but not two), frequently included in lists of "big names" performers (but never the subject of a major article), can't find a solid citation of charting or radio rotation (though this listing says "considerable airplay"), toured internationally (but I can't find "non-trivial coverage"). He was interviewed in the January issue of Blues Matters, but I can't find that interview online. It seems like he's an important figure in a music niche that doesn't put a lot of writing online. --Hebisddave (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, interviews are considered primary sources that wouldn't count as coverage for the purpose of determining notability. Strangely, so far we seem to have a consensus to delete without anybody actually !voting. I came across him while searching YouTube for ZZ-Top's song "Sure Got Cold After the Rain Fell" and found Whittington's excellent rendition of that song. He's a good blues guitarist... just doesn't quite reach our threshold here, unfortunately. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Briefly playing? Um, how is 15 years briefly? As for notability he gets reviews such as

Clark, Keith (30 November 2012), "Magical blues performance; Buddy Whittington. The Tunnels", Bristol Evening Post

Clark, Keith (3 December 2009), "Now buddy's top banana in his bunch", Bristol Evening Post

and articles such as

"John The Revelator haalt Bluesbreaker Buddy Whittington naar Bluestrain", IJmuider Courant, 10 May 2010 (Dutch)

"Buddy Whittington y Santiago Campillo, dos clásicos en Avilés", El Comercio Online, 13 October 2017 (Spanish)

Argiolas, Carlo (11 July 2012), "Buddy Whittington, ecco il blues d'autore", Unione Sarda (Italian)

Not that much but enough for MUSIC#1. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Did you find those online? ~Anachronist (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article certainly serves our educational and informational purposes, as I see it. Established sources verify history. Retaining the article improves Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete/merge Rezaeinejad to Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, no consensus on Hosseinpour and Shahriari, default to keep. Though there were many different outcomes proposed for each of these articles, they could still be divided into two basic camps: the keep/rename camp (since the vast majority of keep voters appeared at least open to a re-naming, especially in the case of Rezaeinejad), and the delete/merge camp (since the delete voters all seemed to be of the view that the content could appropriately be contained in Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists).

In the case of Razaeinejad, only one participant advocated an outright keep, and did so using a WP:OSE argument. Four more advocated a stand-alone article dealing with Rezaeinejad's death, and one of those was only weakly. In contrast, five participants advocating deletion, and a further four advocated merging (and, as noted, in the circumstances of this AFD, those options amounted to much the same thing. There was a very clear consensus (with only one dissenter) that Darioush Rezaeinejad should not continue to exist in its current form - the only real question was whether the death should be covered in a stand-alone article, or in Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. In the end, the numbers (combined with User:k.e.coffman's clarification that their !vote for the former option was a weak one) are sufficient to give the latter option a claim to consensus.

Hosseinpour and Shahriari can be dealt with together, since every single participant advocated the same solution for both of them. The count on those is six advocating keeping, and seven advocating deletion or merging (with User:Clarityfiend expressing no opinion). The majority of the arguments on both sides—with the exception of User:Huldra's on the one side and arguably User:Johnpacklambert's on the other—focused primarily on the application of the WP:GNG. In my view, it is not possible to say that a consensus has emerged on the treatment of these two articles. Steve Smith (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darioush Rezaeinejad

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL / WP:BIO1E. Dead 35 year old post-graduate student and alleged member of Iranian nuclear program. Please see the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan which closed as a redirect to Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists - following which this was redirected as well. There is no coverage of this individual of not besides his death and circumstances leading to his death. His death is already amply covered in Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists - not much to merge, and topic-wise these deaths are treated as a group, and not individually. I am also nominating two other similar individuals. Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BIO1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
~~Delete per nomination since subject's lacking independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

If the article changes title to Assassination of Darioush Rezaeinejad I'd comfortably change my opinion to a "Weak keep" since almost all sources are about the event. As an individual the subject is not independently notable. -The Gnome (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We already cover this assassination in Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists - at quite some length.Icewhiz (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The killing of Jean Charles de Menezes was not bundled together with an article about terrorist incidents because the victim was not a terrorist and his assassination was a case of mistaken identity. This seems to be the case, per sources, with the subject of the contested article: The victim was falsely assumed by the assassins to be Darioush Rezaei; Mossad subsequently claimed that the killed man was indeed working for Iran's nuclear program but there's no corroboration for this. Whatever we do with this article about an Electrical Engineer, it certainly does not belong in an article about nuclear scientists. -The Gnome (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not 100% clear who (Mossad or anyone else) was behind any of these. Nor is it clear what role any of these individuals filled in Iran's alleged program. However, electrical engineers do play an important role in any modern nuclear program - quite a bit of the staff at Sandia and LLNL are EEs. High voltage and rapid switching is quite important for nuclear detonators. There is no clear indication this is any sort of mistake - this individual was working at a national security facility.Icewhiz (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naah...but Israeli sources do an awful lot of "wink, wink, nudge, nudge", which is what they typically do in these cases.... (Read the Spiegel article) Huldra (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Icewhiz, a "national security facility" does not equate to a "nuclear facility." Western countries, to use an obvious example, have myriads of "national security facilicities," none of which are nuclear related. Second, when Mossad comes out and states that an assassinated person was working for Iran's nuclear program, then we can say with a rather high degree of probability that the victim was indeed targeted by Mossad (who, then, went on to justify the killing). Third, everyone working for a state service of Iran, especially in the armed forces, can be considered a legitimate target by your logic ("electrical engineers do play an important role in any modern nuclear programme"). Perhaps, to be on the safe side, Mossad should kill all Iranians with a college degree.

In which case, we'd have a huge number of Wikipedia articles to audit, of course, which is a problem. -The Gnome (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting into whether this was legit or not or who did this - there are obviously two issues here that muddy the waters - Iran denying having a nuclear weapon program, and no one clearly taking responsibility. However, Politico in 2018 when covering the alleged Israeli assasinations (which are notable as a group - this individual got a short paragraph) - wrote [12] In July 2011, a motorcyclist followed Darioush Rezaeinejad, a doctor of nuclear physics and a senior researcher for Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, until he reached a point close to the Imam Ali Camp, one of the most fortified bases of the Revolutionary Guard, which contains an experimental uranium enrichment area. The biker drew a pistol and shot Rezaeinejad dead. - so it seems later sources do see this individual as connection to a nuclear program. Looking at the sources for this individual (and there aren't that many) - it seems there was an initial spin that this was a mistake. However, later coverage from Iran has glorified the group as a group - and it doesn't seem that some nuclear (peaceful, of course) connection is denied anymore. Electrical Engineers play a vital role in many fields (from medical devices, through signal processing, high voltage, and yes - nuclear programs as well - usually specializing in a particular field or aspect - nuclear engineering, in academia, is often a sub-department (or in less developed institutions - merely a few personnel in the interdisciplinary department) inside the electrical engineering department) - don't sell EEs short.Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that is not convincing at all and I have no stomach for a discussion about Middle East spin. I suggest Keep with the intention of renaming the article later on. It's a subject with independent notability and deserves a stand-alone article. A link to the list of assassinated nuclear scientists in Iran would be, of course, welcome. -The Gnome (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ok, just ask yourself: if an Israeli with similar qualifications had been killed: would that have been considered notable? Hell, yeah,...and there would not only be a Wikipedia article about him, but also about every street, park or area named after him. Alas....when he is an Iranian murdered....he can be forgotten? Hell, no, Huldra (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE is a non-valid argument which doesn't need to be countered, however as we may see in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben-Joseph Livnat, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Danny Gonen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oron Shaul, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Yehoshua Weisbrod (nominated by Huldra herself) - this does not seem to be the case. Furthermore in this case - we already have an article on the event - Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists.Icewhiz (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yehoshua Weisbrod was an arbitrary victim, in the wrong place at the wrong time, as were all of the above, AFAIK. Clearly you can see the difference an arbitrary victim, and a targeted assassination? Also, all should note that the AfDs for Ardeshir Hosseinpour and Majid Shahriari both redirects here, so this is in reality a triple AfD vote. Huldra (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Targets may be non-notable. See WP:BUNDLE for how AfD bundling works - in this case since the individuals are highly similar (and the redirect undone in all 3) - bundling made sense.Icewhiz (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, it seems you missed step III in WP:BUNDLE: "Add the remaining articles to the nomination." Huldra (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"la" + "find sources" were added for both, and the deletion nomination refers to the bundle -- I am also nominating two other similar individuals - I don't see how I missed step III.Icewhiz (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bad! I see it now...just unaccustomed to this format. Huldra (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra, I'm loath to suggest any kind of "pro-Israeli" bias but in my experience here I cannot say I did not witness a pattern of alerts calling in votes on AfDs and of keeping up articles about subjects of quite dubious notability. Rather sad this. -The Gnome (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Gnome Yeah well, I once estimated that if you were a random victim of a violence in Israel/Palestine, your chances of getting a Wikipedia article were more than 100 times larger if you were Jewish, than if you were Palestinian. (Just count the number of civilian victims in the conflict (=the large majority are Palestinian) and compare it with number of Wikipedia articles on victims (=the large majority are Jewish) Huldra (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps the article should be called "killing of Darioush Rezaeinejad". The one event seems to be notable with numerous newspaper stories from around the world. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be important to keep it but altering the title to "Killing of Darioush Rezaeinejad","..... Hosseinpour", ".... Shahriari" might be a suitable fitting here.GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is basically built on subsubstantiated claims. It is a very clear fail of verifiability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point us, please, to those claims that are "subsubstantiated"? I'd be happy to change my suggestion if we find sources to be "subsubstantiated." Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 12:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the first one is borderline, but as an “Assasination of …” may be a week keep. Majid Shahriari appears to be notable for a stand-alone article, and so is the 2nd entry. Should probably not have been a bundled nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the bundling - note I did not nominate/bundle Masoud Alimohammadi who as a tenured professor should be evaluated more critically for PROF (which he may fail). Regarding Majid Shahriari - the bundle is appropriate. He has very little or no coverage prior to being killed. His known or alleged position(s) wouldn't qualify for WP:NPROF or WP:SOLDIER. And his publications - google scholar search for him (might include someone from a different field as well) - not many, mostly uncited by others, many of them conference/low-grade journals, and he's the co-author on most of them - shows no snowball chance in hell of passing NPROF by dint of his publications. Coverage of him and Rezaeinejad are the same (in relation to their death for the most part with some MEMORIAL type publications) and often done jointly (in the same articles).Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO1E ,WP:NPROF or WP:SOLDIER and there is a page Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists for this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. I see little notability outside the circumstances of his death and the references used to write the article, as noted above, are mostly unsubstantiate claims. Redirecting to the relevant article where there is existing context regarding circumstances of his death is the best course of action here. Peacock (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Rezaeinejad to Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists#23 July 2011. A few details about the possibility of mistaken identity would be good, but the incident itself doesn't warrant a standalone article. Not sure about the other two, who were actual nuclear scientists; that would depend more on their academic standing. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for fellow editors who suggest only a mention in the "List." Was not the assassination a notable event? If title and content change and focus on the assassination, doesn't that have independent notability? The Wikipedia article about the person who ostensibly ordered the assassination, Mossad's then-chief Tamir Pardo, is overwhelmed with sources relevant to the event: The Sydney Morning Herald ("Mossad shot dead Iranian scientist"}; Der Spiegel ("Mossad Behind Tehran Assassinations, Says Source"); Middle East online ("Mossad behind murder of Iranian scientist"); UPI ("Israel killed Iranian"); Haaretz ("Israel's New Mossad Chief Behind Assassination of Iran Nuclear Scientist"). -The Gnome (talk) 12:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Had this been a long list (with one liner entries for each event) - you might have had a point. However - Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists is not a list, and covers (at length, and could possibly be expanded) 6 connected assassination (and attempts) events in which Iranian (alleged) nuclear scientists were targets. These men were not targeted individually - but rather as part of an (alleged) campaign. There is little reason (or policy justification per BIO1E / NOTMEMORIAL) to have an individual article for each one as opposed to covering the entire (alleged) campaign.Icewhiz (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article titled "List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots," with coverage of more than "one line" for each one of them. And then we have an independent article for each of those attempts and plots, successfully or unsuccessful. Those people were historically targeted because they were presidents of the United States; not for individual reasons. Having a list about those attempts and the assassinations, cumulatively, does not preclude Wikipedia from having separate articles about each one. Same with Israel's targeting of Iran's nuclear program: We quite correctly have bundled together all known attempts and assassinations in one article; we can also have, quite easily and rightfully, an independent article about any subject in there that possesses independent notability. The assassination of Darioush Rezaeinejad quite evidently does. That's all there is to it. -The Gnome (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no connection between US president assassinations, whereas in this case this is (allegedly) one campaign in a limited time frame of a few years agajnst individual government workers of little note (beyond being killed). The content in all these cases has not reached WP:SPINOFF turf. Most of the lasting coverage here is of the set of killed scientists as a group - and not of individuals - try finding sources discussing any of the nominated articles that do not cover the other individuals in the set (by contrast - it is not hard to fidn sources focused on JKF or the attempt on Reagan).Icewhiz (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. If "there is no connection between US president assassinations" then why do we have an article in Wikipedia that bunches together all attempts, plots, and assassinations of them? Because they are related, that's why. They're not related operationally, but on account of being acts against the life of a sitting U.S. president, throughout History, whatever the reason each time.

As to the Iranians, we don't get to decide when an item has achieved spin off status; reliable sources do. The plentiful of sources is evidence of independent notability for the assassination of Darioush Rezaeinejad. That independent notability is, of course, entirely independent of the notability of the other assassinated persons. Can your logic truly be "either everyone or no one"?? Surely it can't. Something seems to be bothering you, what is it? -The Gnome (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all to Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, the event within which these deaths have a modicum of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A "modicum" of notability?! Hah. Each and every one of these assassinations received extensive coverage in both the western world and (much more so) in the Middle East, including Israel. The only error made by the creators of those articles was that they titled them with the name of the person, e.g. " Darioush Rezaeinejad," instead of focusing on their assassination, i.e. "Assassination of Darioush Rezaeinejad." And on this easily amendable, technical error rests the whole case of those who want to see the articles disappear. This is why they keep invoking WP:1E, a fig leaf of an argument.

By the way, there's a campaign afoot to delete each and every article about those individuals from Wikipedia. They want them all buried inside the "List" tomb, with minimal information and a couple of sources for each one. Every deletion proposal links to this AfD. I will not speculate as to the motives behind such a campaign. But someone's using a multiple-head missile. -The Gnome (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO1E is a Wikipedia guideline - not a fig leaf. The campaign of killing these individuals is notable as whole - individual events are not. We do not have a separate article for each day in the Battle of France (where there are spinoffs for some battles - but not a day by day article) - even though we could find extensive coverage of each and every day. Nor do we have, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, pages on non-notable individual casualties or the killing of said casualties in the Battle of France (and again - we could find several notable incidents - merged into the main article or its spinoffs). Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists is not a list - it describes a campaign - and what is in each individual bio can be (and in fact, for the most part already is) covered there at length - as this is a total of six assassinations.Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're twisting my words. WP:BIO1E is not a fig leaf by itself. I did not say this. What I said is that basing your argument on that guideline makes the argument a fig leaf, since the situation is easily amendable by renaming the contested articles. (But, of course, people want to seem the articles deleted; not fixed.)

As to your whole line of argument, it actually makes the very List itself, i.e. the article bundling together all the assassinations, even less tenable, and the existence of every individual article more justified! "Only six" killings?! How can we have an article about such a small lot? How about this: let's delete every mention of these assassinations from Wikipedia. This would follow logically: Too small a number of persons has been liquidated, none of these individuals is worth independent notice, it's all misinformation, etc. So, you propose a multi-delete by having one AfD, this AfD, in actual fact about all the independent articles. Based on the outcome of such efforts in the past, I'd say you will succeed. -The Gnome (talk) 07:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is not on all of them. There are 6. 1 was deleted. 3 are up for deletion. 2 aren't (Masoud Alimohammadi doesn't pass SIGCOV (outside of 1E) but NPROF needs to be evaluated separately. Fereydoon Abbasi - the head of the Atomic Energy Organization and various other things - seems to pass regardless of the assassination attempt).Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, 3 are up for deletion through this AfD. Three birds with one stone. As I said, I'm sure you will succeed. The whole Iranian nuclear scientists thing thing will shrivel and contract to an insignificant mention in Wikipedia. Well, only themselves to blame they have; they shouldn't have got involved. -The Gnome (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for why these 3 are connected - Contrast gNews for "Darioush Rezaeinejad" with gNews "Darioush Rezaeinejad" -"Shahriari" or gNews "Ardeshir Hosseinpour" -Shahriari vs. gNews "Ardeshir Hosseinpour" - these 3 are almost always discussed in conjunction with each other - the exceptions being an image captions in an unrelated article, coverage of a visit to the family, or old coverage of an individual that was killed prior to the other individual. They are discussed in outside sources - as a set.Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lord knows what you're on about. I never disputed the killings were connected. They are connected; they're part of the blatantly obvious pattern of Iranian nuclear scientists being the targets of assassinations. (By whom? Probably the Martians.) They're also "connected" in the narrow sense of each case being mentioned in the media along with any new one. But this is standard background reportage! Whenever we have, for instance, a mass shooting incident in a US school, news reports are bound to mention previous such incidents. In this sense, the shootings are "connected." Does this mean Wikipedia should bundle them together all in one article? No, and neither should the attempts on the Iranians, because each one of those incidents possesses independent notability. The rest is noise. -The Gnome (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed - I think keep the articles on Hosseinpour and Shahriari, merge the article on Rezaeinejad. The former two were academics that, while they didn't meet NPROF, their work/death "had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" (criteria #7) and their deaths seem to me to have been very significant in Iran and to fit in an encyclopedia. I prefer titled without the words "assassination of" for those two, but don't feel strongly about it. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect this article to Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. This is a person notable for a single event, and while it was notable at the time, particularly for the claims of mistaken identy that the others don't seem to have, I can't find any evidence of notability lasting beyond 2012. I would like to see the person's bio section expanded as part of the merge, including the argument for mistaken identity, although not necessarily as extensively as in this article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:16, 21 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vidalenolone

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

All chemical compounds must meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia. This one does not. It does not appear in the chemical literature beyond the description of it being identified. A Google search turns up nothing more than routine/automated database listings. There is literally nothing more to be said about this chemical compound than what's written in this one sentence stub. We can say it has been identified and really nothing more. ChemNerd (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, not notable for a standalone article but of encyclopedic interest for a list or inclusion in a parent article. Not a chemistry afficionado so will leave it to others to determine the merge into article or list, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any appropriate target for a merge and redirect. ChemNerd (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to have received no coverage in the 16 years since it was published. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. If you really want to merge the info somewhere, I guess you could add it to the somewhat bizarre List of compounds with carbon number 13? Other than that I can't find a suitable redirect target... Ajpolino (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Randall

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

This person has left the modelling industry around 2011-2012 that she has decided to give up her modelling career and pursued with degree of law. This now fails within WP:NBIO. ApprenticeFan work 10:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Er, surely it always did. If she's left modelling, change "is" to "was" in the first sentence and that's it done. If she's notable or not is a separate issue, but this nomination seems to be based only on her having left. Emeraude (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to being a notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added additional citations to the article which show significant discussion and interest about this subject over time.[13][14][15][16][17][18] Easily passes WP:GNG for significant discussion in secondary sources. Lonehexagon (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILL model. Delete.2001:A61:4E6:C500:5DD1:DCD9:3049:64D7 (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What issue do you have with the multiple reliable, independent sources that cover the subject in detail over the course of years? Additionally, I read WP:MILL, which is an unofficial essay as opposed to an official guideline, but even so I couldn't find any examples that apply to this subject. The examples of run-of-the-mill topics include residential addresses, commercial buildings, local sports, local clubs, local festivals, side streets, a bank, regular political rallies, and local lawyers. Which of these applies to this subject? Lonehexagon (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete I think this falls under WP:BLP1E~~, the event being her participation on America's Next Top Model; coverage of her modeling career such as [19] is trivial. Weak because [20] does seem somewhat substantial and is about something other than the show. I'm unsure how reliable "observer.com" is, though, it's a purely digital media company with a "irreverent sensibility". power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She has received significant coverage for her role as a New Jersey politics commentator. Even if you don't include the New York Observer coverage,[21] there are other examples of coverage on that position, including New Jersey 101.5 and Politico.[22][23] Lonehexagon (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional links. It's still a borderline case, but my !vote is now Weak Keep. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Binayak Giri

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

Unremarkable U-16 Cricket player, Fails WP:NCRICKET and WP:GNG. Quoting WP:CRICKET Notability guidelines - " Youth players (e.g. members of under-19 teams) are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG." Razer(talk) 09:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cricketer is notable so i suggest to keep player it doesn't matter in age cayse he has played many national games and references also shows that. MTKASH^{TALK Contribs} 09:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCRIC, having not played any 1st class, list A nor T20 games or any national games at a suitable level. Does not pass WP:GNG for me. I can't find a page for them on cricinfo. Spike 'em (talk) 11:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails our notability guidelines for cricket players, which are absurdly broad as it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails N:CRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCRIC. Smartyllama (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see anything that's not run of the mill coverage at the stage, so I don't see how this can get close to the GNG. There may be further Nepalese sources which go into extensive detail on the chap, but the ones presented in the references are really only standard passing mention stuff I'm afraid. If the press coverage is there then I'd consider keeping, but otherwise not. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthem of the United Federation of Planets

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

Small nugget of fan trivia, with no significant coverage online in WP:RS. Prodded by a second editor, prod contested by a third without comment. I would have tried merging it to United Federation of Planets, but that article truly does not require any more poorly sourced fancruft and WP:OR. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh, dear Lord. OR and fancruft so minute that it shouldn't even be merged into the main UFoP article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 12:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was going to !vote merge, but I think ^{• whaddya want? •} is correct - as it stands, it would simply not warrant either by evidence or weight a place in the primary article. In any case, there certainly doesn't seem sufficient suitable sourcing available for keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Beemer69, "OR and fancruft". power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no real out-of-universe importance. (Although I think part of it could go into United Federation of Planets, even if the entire thing probably shouldn't.) /Julle (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. I'm a fan, but I don't think this is notable. I'll change my mind if out-of-universe (pardon the pun) sources can be found. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Clearly no great urgency on the part of the community to delete this article. 104.163.137.171 has improved it significantly since nomination, anyway, so this might have been a WP:HEY even if anyone had chimed in. A Train^talk 10:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shynola

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

No apparent notability, no sources, reads like a CV. Single exhibition in 1996 Heliotom (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is factual-- they seem to have done everything claimed. I found and added nine sources quite quickly, which means there are many more out there. In reference to the "single exhibition" mentioned by the nom, Shynola produced mainly video works for music and advertising, which, given the calibre of the musicians they worked for, had to have been seen by many millions. 104.163.137.171 (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 21 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. (non-admin closure) Theroadislong (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terence Hogan

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

Fails WP:GNG There is only one verifiable source a piece in the Daily Mail written by the article's creator. Theroadislong (talk) 09:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. There are clearly some reliable sources available which have not been added in the previous years, I think it should be reduced to a stub and worked on. Theroadislong (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the page I feel now I am being punished for uploading photographs that were refused as I am new to wiki and just needed help. I was blocked and vandalism was mentioned. Now you wish to take the whole article down. It is not just based on the daily mail. I cited The Autobiography of a Thief by Bruce Reynolds. I cited Crossing the Line by Bruce Reynolds. I cited The Who's Who Of British Crime by Jim Morris. My fathers obituary is in The Guardian 26 jan 1996 Final Curtain for Robber who got away, with a full document of his life. His is in other media writings and I appeared on the BBC One show which is on Youtube regarding him. I think personally someone does not want me on here I cant tell you how upset I feel kareenzaKareenza (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Context Kareenza has never been blocked on Wikipedia. She was blocked and then unblocked on Commons. -- SLV100 (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photo advice You can try uploading them here on Wikipedia instead if they at least fall under fair use. Take this advice with a grain of salt, as I don't have much experience with uploading photos. -- SLV100 (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the debate about the photo, my impression of the article is that it contains content that is likely true (being provided by Terence Hogan's daughter), but either needs to be supported by references in the text, or else deleted. Oral history, father-to-daughter, cannot be used. If content can be supported by writings from Reynolds, Morris, etc., cite those. The objections are not intended to be personal to Kareenza, or in objection to TR being an article. Rather, they are standard (and common) when a person's family members contribute to an article. Example of what has to be deleted: "The last phone call he made was to say he wished he could have taken a different road in life, and that he regretted everything, including the crime and his intermittent alcoholism, except his wife and children. He paid for his crimes with his life, and his psychiatrist said to his daughter after he died, "there was nothing his family could have done to save him, it was all in his childhood". As none of this is from a published, independent source, it cannot be in the article. David notMD (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much David David notMD I will take that out now. I have added citations and my tv appearance on BBC The One Show, where they had a great team of researchers and I had to be recored with absolute facts of the crime and Dads participation. I have added the youtube link to my page. Of course I am probably making mistakes and am in awe of what great people like you and ZfJames and NinjaRobotPirate have done for me, I know i need to tidy it up and will have to learn. I am very very new to all this and its hard when you feel an idiot and a dinosaur! I just needed a bit of help, because the story is of value to young people today wanting to get involved with crime. It had a devastating effect on my family and ended in all of us suffering so much and Dad was in a state of terror and in a psychotic episode so I want people to know it looks good from the outside but you pay and pay for crime. I speak in schools about crime and its effect on children. Anyway you have been very patient. My article needs tidying but I know now someone might take it down and that is a shame as to me it is a piece of British history. kareenzaKareenza (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP - high profile notoriety - Independent refers to him as Terry "Lucky Tel" Hogan, a leading underworld figure, Who's Who of British Crime, Historical Heists, Biographies, Great Train Robbery (1963), Eastcastle Street, there's also The Sun, Mirror and Daily Mail which are not RS but I think they serve in this regard since "gang-style" criminals tend to attract the tabloids, and he is also mentioned as the mentor of Bruce Reynolds, in the book Crossing The Line: Autobiography of a Thief Bantam Press. ISBN 1-8522-7929-X, Reynolds’ friend, Terry Hogan, introduced him to The Star following the Eastcastle Street mailbag robbery of 1952 in which they both took part. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:00, 13 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. A Train^talk 10:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hisham al-Hashimi

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

No indication of notability. The sourcing looks impressive but usually is just passing mentions where al-Hashimi comments on some topic, without significant coverage of al-Hashimi himself. Significant parts of the "bio" section aren't confirmed by the cited sources. Huon (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From what is around online in English, he clearly has some significance, although I don't think he would quite edge over GNG based on what I've seen alone, for reasons mentioned above. However, most of the references are in Arabic, and indeed I would expect there to be more sources about him in that language. He also has a page on the Arabic Wikipedia, which is possibly an indication of notability based on such sources. Unless we can find an Arabic speaker who can confirm all the Arabic sources are not significant enough to establish notability, I would err towards a keep to be honest. BubbleEngineer (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added many sources 185.88.24.150 (talk) 19:36, 21 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. Can be equivalently construed as a weak keep.Gnome has put it nicely. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milovan Stanković

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

I didn't find any links, beside his personal site that he is laureate of Isidora Sekulić Award. Also, beside this award nothing adds to notability Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources....Sorry, but you can overdo it. There are so many articles where you can name the problem of really missing references. Everything is correct in the article. If You are interested in references: example 1...a meaningless action, sorry!!--AustrianFreedom (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other articles in Wikipedia may be lacking in sources is entirely irrelevant. You cannot use it as an argument. For more, see here. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stanković is laureate of the Isidora Sekulić Award: article of Večernje novosti. The process is absurd and not objective. What should be discussed? That someone quickly initiates a discussion on deletion? Sorry, that process is not okay.--AustrianFreedom (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Neutrality and objectivity apply. It is therefore completely unobjective and not neutral to put a correct article for discussion on deletion.An encyclopedia contains as much knowledge as possible. It should not include judgments that are only subjective and unobjective. I think, everybody could find another list to add for discussion on deletion. Sorry, that is absurd. No offense! I do not want to offend anyone. That was not my intention with my last statement.--AustrianFreedom (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: unfortunately the article on Isidora Sekulić Award in the Serbian WP also references Stankovic's biography. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: hi Arthistorian1977, i know the Isidora Sekulić Award may not be on par with the NIN Award but could you please elaborate on why it cannot be used for notability, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem for me is that I didn't find any secondary sources confirming he received the award. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please, look at the sources: article of the newspaper Danas (introduction: 2001 Nagrada Isidora Sekulić). Thanks.--AustrianFreedom (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: hi AustrianFreedom, if you could provide more reviews (from reliable sources of course :)) of Stankovic's works that would be really helpful, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, hallo, I'll try to find something. But it is a fact that already enough references are available. Many articles with much more text are not nearly written with such a number of references. Sorry, I can't understand this process. I wanted more factual behavior, rather than such action.--AustrianFreedom (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment searching made difficult by the other Milovan Stanković, described in a 1996 NYTimes article as a former soldier who founded a newspaper Alternativa in post-conflict Kosovo. Serb Fighter Now Fights Ruling Party In Bosnia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please, come on, what is so difficult? New Article? Milovan Stanković (politician) or (as you like it)--AustrianFreedom (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I guess. He did receive the 2001 Isidora Sekulić award according to:

"Harmonija i odgonetanje smrti". Danas. 20 January 2007.

I also found a 2013 interview concerning his Leptir novel:

"Potraga za srećnim ostrvima". Večernje novosti. 22 December 2013.

There's a review of Fuler in Serbian Studies:

Serbian Studies. North American Society for Serbian Studies. 2003. p. 154.

Combined with sources already in the article, I think the GNG and NAUTHOR are (barely) satisfied. No such user (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please remember to state Keep, Delete, Redirect, Merge, Userfy or Transwiki to help the person who closes this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a right mess. This discussion is an even worse mess. Almost all sources are non-English. And the subject's main advocate is behaving boorishly. Yet, we seem to (just barely) cover the WP:NAUTHOR criteria. So a (very) Weak Keep it is. -The Gnome (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 14:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catrina Raiford

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

Does not pass notability guidelines. Natureium (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of fluff sourcing, but the very tone with statements like "a regular at the gym" is just plain not encyclopedic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There's quite a lot of news articles from reputable sources about her online, so I think she's just about notable. The article is in a pretty poor shape, admittedly, but that's not a good reason for complete removal, and this could be fairly easily made an acceptable stub. BubbleEngineer (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Some parts of the article need to be rewritten to fit the encyclopedic style, but this is not a reason it itself to delete the article. Emass100 (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is from tabloids. These are not reliable sources. Natureium (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as above. Wpgbrown (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: But the article needs substantial improvement. Agree 'regular at the gym' is not encyclopedic.Terristevens (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep terrible article at the moment, but as others have stated, "needs improvement" is not a reason to delete. I see a lot of coverage, and it's spread over a couple of years. Amsgearing (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is from tabloids. These are not reliable sources. Natureium (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some tabloids may be unreliable, but just because a newspaper is a tabloid doesn't automatically make it unreliable. Amsgearing (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naema Ahmed

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

She was put on the BBC 100 Women list but BBC honor is not enough to establish WP:N

Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person so fails GNG. Saqib (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 05:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm on the fence for this one. She was listed in the top 100 Businesswomen and that generated coverage. But, at the moment it's just that. We should wait until people capable of reading the Urdu press can investigate whether there is significant coverage of her in addition to that. Otherwise it might be WP:TOOSOON. Ross-c (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ross-c: I did tried to locate coverage on her in Urdu language RS but was unsuccessful. In-fact no coverage exists in BBC Urdu. --Saqib (talk) 07:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable entreprenuer. It's Wikipedia:TOOSOON --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 14:20, 13 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) 14:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khurram Patras

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

Actors who appeared in only one film is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia. Basically fails to meet WP:ACTORBIO. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person thus fails basic GNG as well. I can see some press coverage which mention the subject, but nothing significant. Saqib (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he appeared in a film in a notable role that was nominated for a pair of awards and he also appears on a notable television series. Seems to pass the guideline and article is cited to substantial coverage in reliable independemt sources which further meets the General Notability Guideline. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. To be notable he needed to have been nominated for major awards several times. Two nominations for the same awards ceremony is not what I think makes for 'multiple nominations'. But only just. If someone can show me that others have been considered notable for multiple nominations for the same award ceremony, then I"d be prepared to change my vote. But, for now: WP:TOOSOON. Ross-c (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON. A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:NACTOR and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Per Ross-c. Per WP:TOOSOON--VitalPower (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like it's too soon for this actor. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:42, 21 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. No consensus after 1 month at AfD (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McKenna (Scrabble player)

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

Subject of the article appears to meet all the criteria for exclusion in WP:BLP1E. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Redirect~~ Single event. Redirect to World Youth Scrabble Championships#WYSC 2012 : Birmingham, England. Other "event", ie highest combined score, article subject was the losing party, and by a long way too, so not that important. Aoziwe (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In view of further referenced achievements, changing my !vote to keep. I am concerned though about the difficulty of finding any IRS outside of the "scrabble world" reporting, hence exposing a lack of WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG, although I do like the analogy below to WP:ATHLETE. Aoziwe (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I talk below about why the highest score "event" should count as a second event. But additionally, two more events have since been added and one is a world record to which Aoziwe's criticism doesn't apply.
- Speaking to the highest score "event", which Aoziwe believes is not sufficiently important, there are two points of note. Firstly, the record is replicated on the main Scrabble page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrabble), and that it was noteworthy enough to make it to the main page suggests to me that it should count as a second event here.
- Additionally, the winner's score of 729 has been achieved a number of times in the past (http://www.wespa.org/700club.shtml). None of those games have combined scores which approach the combined record (eg highest score by one player is 850-259 by Toh Weibin), because such games are almost always much more one-sided. So the implication that the subject's role in the record was unimportant is a misjudgement in my view.
- I will say I was too quick to publish this page and I had inadequately referenced the subject's records with secondary references elsewhere on Wikipedia which were subsequently deleted (and have now been replaced). Performance at the World Scrabble Championship and the now-beaten record for the highest score between two players in 24 hours is now added. Clearly WP:ATHLETE does not apply here, but by analogy, a world youth championship, or a world record, or participation in a world championship is sufficient by itself for presumed notability for many of those sports.Scrumpet97 (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have left a notification of this afd at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Insufficient participants
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see that these records are important; "most Scrabble points in 24 hours" borders on the absurd. Performance in junior-level competitions never meets WP:NSPORT (and would be a WP:BLP1E concern here even if GNG is met), and I don't see any other coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One Night Out

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

Non-notable upcoming film, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the one source in the article is a simple database listing. It previously also cited IMDb as a source. All but the first few edits by this user relate to this film. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The film is yet to be launched and the production house is not notable delete per WP:NFF.--DBig Xray 22:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could not find any reviews so it looks like this is on the way out. However, if after it is released, it receives at least 2 reviews, preferably more, in reliable sources such as press it can be recreated and G4 will not apply in that case, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: G4 only apply if the two versions are "substantially identical" and also do we count reviews by newspaper equal to nationally known critics e.g. Film Critics Circle of India as sugested by WP:NFILM ...and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics? Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 05:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment two full length reviews in national or regional newspapers that are considered reliable sources count as a pass of WP:GNG, which is enough for inclusion irrespective of WP:NFILM, although more reviews would be preferable, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: How? GNG required "Significant coverage" that addresses the topic directly and in detail but reviews don't give that coverage they basically talk about reviewers personal experience. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Full Reviews count as significant coverage that address the topic directly and in detail by an independent professional reviewer who is often an expert in the field if they are in reliable sources for films, books, albums, songs, video games, cars, products and many other topics.If you do not realise that it is your knowledge of consensus and policy that is lacking Atlantic306 (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well as I said above there is a difference between coverage and sharing own experience, anyways this is not the right place for this debate so I will ping you once I post this at ICTF or somewhere else. Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 03:45, 16 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 Flag of the United States#The 49- and 50-star unions. Consensus seems to be that only the one event of his flag design claim has substantial coverage, which is not enough. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 10:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert G. Heft

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

If this biography's only claim to notability is that he claimed to be the only designer of the 50-star flag, this fails WP:ONEEVENT. As it is explained in Flag of the United States#The 49- and 50-star unions, he was one of three people to submit that exact design. This section sufficiently covers the subject and a separate article on him is not warranted. I have nothing against this man. In fact, I think this page tarnishes his name by making him sound like a liar when all he did was not understand the whole truth. This is exactly the reason WP:BIO1E was created, to protect people like this. ---Coffeeandcrumbs 21:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ---Coffeeandcrumbs 04:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

REdirect to flag -- Not separately notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the flag section. Not the first to come up with the design, and his claim is already discussed there. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flag of the United States#The 49- and 50-star unions. WP:BIO1E. Coverage of this does exist - but not very wide - should not be standalone.Icewhiz (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~(changing iVote, see below) to Flag of the United States#The 49- and 50-star unions. This one is so simple: he has no other claim to notability, his name is a useful search term, and WP:BIO1E, that this can now be a WP:SNOW REDIRECT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:BIO1E "However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." It seems like there is more coverage lately, especially since it was hard to find anything back then. His flag was raised at many locations. StrayBolt (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Heft was the leader of many Lancaster County, Ohio social and political organizations throughout his life and was the mayor of Napoleon, Ohio from 1975 to 1989. He also had a prolific career as a speaker about the flag and its history. This part of his career was removed from his page in April.[24] Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've put back the career section and expanded it a bit (and accidentally removed the AfD notice - sorry). His coverage is far from spectacular, but he had an interesting and long public career which was well covered in local and regional newspapers in the 1960s through 1980s as well as his speaking career which continued into the 2000s. There are a large number of in-depth articles about him which do and which do not discuss his claim to designing the flag, particularly in northwestern Ohio newspapers; a few of which I've added as sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet GNG per sources from Smmurphy. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with thanks to User:Smmurphy for noticing that "career" section hd been deleted and replacing it in article. There is now enough here (civic leadership, mayor of (small pop.) corn belt county seat,) combined with coverage of flag design, to make this a keeper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to flag or delete: Per above as not notable. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC since "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.". Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. A politician that has been a mayor with an otherwise mundane personal and professional life (does not advance notability) has claimed to be the "designer" of the current 50-star flag. The article states, "To date, there is no independent verification of Heft's account". Lacking the before-now-deemed-important criteria of sourcing this would be a no-brainer. Wikilawyering that WP:BIO1E cannot count because there is sufficient refbombing of insignificant sources related to; "Ohio Democrat Chairman Coleman Speaks At Annual Fall Luncheon" (Really!) or interviews or personal accounts such as; "Bob Heft Vividly Remembers Designing Flag" or "Flag Imput Noted From Mayor Heft", leaves us with nothing but the fact that there is "no independent verification of Heft's account". Where is the "national attention" sources? If there are conspiracy thoughts that the feds are just yanking the lime-light and credit then redirect to flag as an area of contention. If we wish to start including that "...(civic leadership, mayor of (small pop.) corn belt county seat,)..." adds up to notability, we have to change all the "rules" to allow every mayor (or politician) in the US, and the equivalent world-wide, an article. All they would need is one unverifiable and possibly interesting, yet actually unsupportable "fact" (interviews and primary sources don't count), to tilt the balance! If we are not going to "slide down that slope" then "my unverifiable claim to a possibly important event" is just that and the article does not deserve stand-alone status. Otr500 (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to address the point about national attention. I do not find widespread coverage of Heft in newspapers.com in 1960, although there are a at least a small number of articles about him and the flag later in the century in newspapers far from his hometown (for instance in the Baltimore Sun in 1964). His obituary was carried in at least 36 newspapers outside of Ohio and Michigan (his home states)[25]. I agree with the points made that it is not correct to call him the "designer" of the flag (in some sources the wording about his relationship to the flag is a little different; this source says that he created the first flag, others note that his flag was the first made from fabric - if something like that may be more accurate, but that is a content issue that can better be addressed outside of an AfD). I'm sorry if my contributions to the article strike you or anyone as refbombing. It was not my intention, and I do not think I added references to material that was already adequately referenced. I also do not think I added trivial material in order to add unnecessary or subpar sources. In any case, I apologize that my edits struck you as bad form. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the wording of the claim can be worked out at talk. But I DO NOT see refbombing. I do see SIGCOV of this man and his flag design that began in the early 60s and continued into this century. Here are the first few hits on a news archive search:

A star among stripes ; Old Glory designer doesn't like to wave his own flag, Vince Bond Jr. Newhouse News Service. Times - Picayune; New Orleans, La. [New Orleans, La]22 Dec 2006: 01

It was his flag from first ; Robert G. Heft designed 50-star flag as a high school project in Ohio, Laurent, Julee R. South Bend Tribune; South Bend, Ind. [South Bend, Ind]21 Nov 2006: -- In 1958, a 17-year-old student named Robert G. hitHeft created... Heft's creation had 50. Little did either......the flag created on his mother's sewing machine would become our national flag.

THE FOLD, FLAG DAY, CELEBRATING OLD GLORY: [NASSAU AND SUFFOLK Edition]

KATIE MEHR. STAFF WRITER. Newsday, Combined editions; Long Island, N.Y. [Long Island, N.Y]14 June 2004: A32....restoring it. 2) Photo Courtesy of The Saginaw News - hitFlag designer Robert G.......by a junior. hitRobert hitHeft, then 17, was assigned a design project of his......hitflag. He then received an A on the project. hitHeft, who went on to become a..

Evolution of the U.S. flag. Page, David. Journal Record; Oklahoma City, Okla. [Oklahoma City, Okla]03 July 2001: 1. ...higher grade if Congress accepted the design. hitHeft sent the hitflag to his....Heft designed a 51-star hitflag with six rows of stars, beginning with a row of..., the Fourth of July, the American hitflag will be displayed at many homes and...

Visual arts: Star turn: Is it patriotic? Subversive? Both? Jonathan Jones on how Jasper Johns made a provocative masterpiece out of the American flag Jones, Jonathan. The Guardian; London (UK) [London (UK)]22 Apr 2003: 2.12....Robert Rosenblum asked of Flag: "Is it blasphemous or respectful, simple-minded...told the art teacher of a shy high-school student called hitRobert G hitHeft. In 1958,... tHeft took it upon himself to redesign the hitflag with 50 stars. He got a B+ for...E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & redirect to Flag of the United States#The 49- and 50-star unions. Not independently notable and the target section already sufficiently covers the subject. Sourcing above is insufficient for a biography. Being a mayor in a small town / civic leader does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 12:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steaming (crime)

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

Dicdef, WP:BEFORE turned up nothing that goes beyond a dictionary definition. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Flash rob. "Steaming" is the word used for this in the UK: [26], [27], [28], [29]. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article existed long before Flash rob, so under WP:ENGVAR that article should actually be merged to this. A British person is no more likely to know what a "flash rob" is than an American is likely to know what "steaming" is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Steaming has been a popular term for since the 1980s whereas flash rob seems quite recent. In any case, per WP:PRESERVE, there's no case for deletion, as it all belongs somewhere, even if it's just robbery. Andrew D. (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glória a Deus

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

A non-notable recording by a notable group. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Comte0 (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is rather a notable recording and should be keeped. All sources are reliable, and more will be added. --DavidStarIsrael7 (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has primary sources. Since Portuguese is not a language I understand, it was difficult for me to find sources. It will also be difficult for us to determine that they're reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it The article is good and has good sources. It should be kept! --MilenaSword1 (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) — MilenaSword1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 2) who has a close association with DavidStarIsrael7. This is an ongoing problem with these Brazian articles and I'm one step away from going to WP:SPI. 3) The sources are good, but they're WP:PRIMARY and so the subject fails GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If secondary sources are to be then I'd vote keep.--VitalPower | talk 12:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While Gateway Worship is a notable producer of Christian worship music, this album lacks sources to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fail in WP:NALBUM. RS covarage not found. The article is only cited to industry and gospel publicity materials. Tendency of religious promotion.Guilherme Burn (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deus Reina

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

A non-notable recording by a notable group. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Comte0 (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article about the album is about something referenciable. It is about a important portuguese album, released in 2015 by the band in partnership with Diante do Trono. The article has reliable sources, and more will be added. --DavidStarIsrael7 (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has primary sources. Since Portuguese is not a language I understand, it was difficult for me to find sources. It will also be difficult for us to determine that they're reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it The article is good and has good sources. It should be kept! --MilenaSword1 (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) — MilenaSword1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 2) who has a close association with DavidStarIsrael7. This is an ongoing problem with these Brazian articles and I'm one step away from going to WP:SPI. 3) The sources are good, but they're WP:PRIMARY and so the subject fails GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Walter Görlitz, there already is an SPI--if you want to add Milena, that't be great. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the two keepers above are now blocked. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, based on the three references listed there is not much hope for this album - no.1 is an announcement from the album band, no.2 a playlist, and no. 3 is just PR ie. "play the album for free!". Coolabahapple (talk) 05:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fail in WP:NALBUM. RS covarage not found. The article is only cited to industry and gospel publicity materials. Tendency of religious promotion.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although Gateway Worship is a notable producer of Christian worship music, this album lacks sources to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:57, 14 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. The delete arguments, as well as the replies to the two blocked sockpuppet 'keep' comments (which weren't based on Wikipedia policy), are convincing. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pra Sempre Teu

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

A non-notable recording by a notable group. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is rather a notable recording and should be keeped. All sources are reliable. --DavidStarIsrael7 (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has primary sources. Since Portuguese is not a language I understand, it was difficult for me to find sources. It will also be difficult for us to determine that they're reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it The article is good and has good sources. It should be kept! --MilenaSword1 (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) — MilenaSword1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 2) who has a close association with DavidStarIsrael7. This is an ongoing problem with these Brazial articles and I'm one step away from going to WP:SPI. 3) The sources are good, but they're WP:PRIMARY and so the subject fails GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this is really a live Portuguese version of their "Forever Yours" album with a few extra songs, interesting that that album doesnt have an article and this one does?, there is an article about this in the Portuguese WP, but the references there are not helpful. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing is paltry on this 2017 album, although Gateway Worship is certainly a notable producer of Christian worship music. I might have suggested REDIRECT, but it would be UNDUE to redirect a common Portugese phrase like pra sempre teu to a record album. Album is mentioned at Gateway Worship#Portuguese albums which seems about right. anyone who wishes can certainly salvage useful sources and add them to the Gateway article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fail in WP:NALBUM. RS covarage not found. The article is only cited to industry and gospel publicity materials. Tendency of religious promotion.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muralhas

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

A non-notable recording by a notable group. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Comte0 (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article about the album is about something referenciable. The article has reliable sources, and more will be added. --DavidStarIsrael7 (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has primary sources. Since Portuguese is not a language I understand, it was difficult for me to find sources. It will also be difficult for us to determine that they're reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it The article is good and has good sources. It should be kept! --MilenaSword1 (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC) this is a sock. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) — MilenaSword1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 2) who has a close association with DavidStarIsrael7. This is an ongoing problem with these Brazian articles and I'm one step away from going to WP:SPI. 3) The sources are good, but they're WP:PRIMARY and so the subject fails GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is good, but there is a lot to improve, so let's get better. Let's keep! --187.56.49.26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC) this is a sock. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- — 187.56.49.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Funny how these Brazilian (specifically Campinas, Sao Paulo, Brazil) anons come to DavidStarIsrael7's support when there are AfDs and other problems. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i didnt know that nominators can strike out other editors words that they dont like? (if so, im in trouble:)), and if they are indeed socks it would be helpful for readers of this afd if that was stated. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- They can't, and I didn't. This happens to have been confirmed WP:SOCKs of the first nominator (who has now been blocked for the behaviour) and is standard practice. Feel free to confirm with an admin or take me to WP:ANI if you question the behaviour. There may be another page that discusses that very thing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks:))Coolabahapple (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC) ps. no thanks to ANI, thats scary:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing is paltry on this 2017 album, although Gateway Worship is certainly a notable producer of Christian worship music. I might have suggested REDIRECT, but it would be inappropriate to redirect a common Portugese word like muralhas (it means "walls.") Album is mentioned at Gateway Worship#Portuguese albums which seems about right. anyone who wishes can certainly salvage useful sources and add them to the Gateway article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fail in WP:NALBUM. RS covarage not found. The article is only cited to industry and gospel publicity materials. Tendency of religious promotion.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:06, 14 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 deleted per the request of the creator here. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saints & Sinners Bingo

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NVG. None of these "sources" are reliable, in any way; most of them are just links to spam sites. theinstantmatrix (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i think there is still a chance to edit to save this article (update) i've changed some source. Personale (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the slim pickings in the WP:VG/SE. --Izno (talk) 18:45, 13 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. Excepting User:Agathoclea, the keep arguments are very light on policy. A Train^talk 21:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018 United Kingdom heat wave

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

This isn't the weather channel. A single day of record-breaking heat (at less than 30C) isn't notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this why oh why attempt at a belt notch. Creator could not even wait for April 2018 to be over before hoisting it up. -The Gnome (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Met Office summary notes only "a brief but very marked hot spell from the 18th to the 21st which produced the highest temperatures in April since 1949." [30] (Less scientifically, I was never out without a jacket, often zipped up, though perhaps the experience was different in the London area.) Nothing worthy of an article or even a partial merge into Climate_of_the_United_Kingdom#Monthly_temperature_extremes. AllyD (talk) 09:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the Midlands and I was walking about without a jacket for those few days (have done today as well as a matter of fact), so it did extend beyond London and the South East. This is Paul (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It was a historic 'very marked' hot spell. I think that anything to do with record breaking (or near record breaking) heat or cold is noteworthy because, it is historical. This story was published in many articles and shown on national television. The fact that you never stopped wearing a jacket is not my fault. I am in the North of England and it was hot here too. It isn't my fault that you didn't experience heat. 14:33, 5 May 2018 (BST)

Whose input is the above? -The Gnome (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

new editor, and article creator, WilsonNorman37 (checked this afd history, they misentered the time of the edit as 14:33, it was 13:32), doesn't know about signing with tildes. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Record-breaking on its own does not confer notability. We need saw-rssa'z. Personal experience is well and good but Wikipedia's stone cold heartlessly indifferent about personal testimony. The meteorological service is quite clear, as competent authorities go: A small statistical blip. May you all walk about in full health, jacket or no jacket. -The Gnome (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's some to be going on with. They talk about the hottest April day since 1949, and the impact on this year's London Marathon:

UK temperatures top 29C in hottest April day since 1949, BBC News, 19 April 2018
Hottest April day in almost 70 years sparks marathon warning, The Guardian, 19 April 2018
UK basks in hottest April day for 70 years, Sky News, 19 April 2018
UK weather: Britain set to sizzle again after hottest April day for 70 years, The Telegraph, 20 April 2018
UK weather latest: Hottest April day in 70 years expected as warm air from Azores set to push temperatures to 28C, The Independent, 19 April 2018
UK weather: Sunday last chance to enjoy heatwave before temperatures plunge and April showers return , The Telegraph, 22 April 2018
Runners face hottest London Marathon despite overnight storms, Sky News, 21 April 2018

Hope this helps. This is Paul (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's more like it. See what a little needling can do? Carry on. -The Gnome (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. I see this is quite badly sourced, including a source from the Met Office Twitter account. I'll have a go at adding some of the references tomorrow. As I've mentioned in my post below this one, if we keep this it may have to move. I suggest something like Spring 2018 United Kingdom heat wave. Since there may be more than one to deal with there may be a better title than that. This is Paul (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Met Office is now reporting more record temperatures, with the hottest May Bank Holiday since the day was made a public holiday in 1978:

Early May Bank Holiday Monday heat record broken, BBC News, 7 May 2018

I'm slightly reluctant to begin work on this while the AFD discussion is open because I don't want to put a load of effort into it only to find it gets deleted next weekend. Instead I'm going to take a copy of what's there and put it in my userspace, because I believe the information here will ultimately need to be part of a wider article anyway. This is Paul (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So now it's an April/May heatwave. With a little patience we can add June, too, in our Weatherpedia. -The Gnome (talk)

Spring is here...I hear. This is Paul (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Event broke some records so is notable in that sense. At the time of writing more records are expected to be broken over the May Bank Holiday weekend, so perhaps this needs renaming and expanding to include that information if it happens. This is Paul (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The UK press is obsessed with the weather, and whenever anything a little unusual happens they manage to find some record that has been broken. I enjoyed those few days of good weather, as I am enjoying this weekend, but between times I had to turn the heating back on and, here in south-east England, we almost got a frost at night. This is all part of the wonderfully variable English weather, but nothing that belongs in an encyclopedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to List of heat waves. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A couple of hotter-than-normal days in the UK is a pretty standard affair. If it was more prolonged, then I'd lean towards keep. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Routine coverage existed for the brief duration of this heat wave. No surprise there. What would actually make this appropriate for an encyclopedia is indepth analysis and prolonged interest, but that can only be assessed in the future; hence, it is also too soon. I am certain a list could retain the essential details in the mean time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine coverage. It wasn't even a real heat wave, at least not by US standards. Here in the States we need 3 days of 90 degree+ temps, and even then it generally isnt notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is wikipedia, not USpedia. US standards are irrelevant here. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, do you have a link for USpedia? -The Gnome (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - If this title is standard for heat waves, is there a good reason why we can not redirect it with history? --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post: [London has warmest April day in nearly 70 years, as enormous heat dome consumes Europe].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We better hurry up with this AfD, then, before the gods get even angrier. -The Gnome (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant, "sustained coverage" to meet WP:SIGCOV. The news covering simply because it is a record breaking day is both routine and WP:109PAPERS. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per all the above comments. Even in the UK a period of warm weather lasting five days isn't notable enough to be in an encyclopaedia. Neiltonks (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news, and this is what all the cold spell and heat wave articles add up to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "highest April temperatures since 1949" are hardly worth noting. Is the United Kingdom temperature so uniform that we are really to believe that the same records apply in northern Scotland as in London? I find that hard to believe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The argument "routine coverage" does not cut it, as this is not a systensis out of regularly published temperature data but coverage of reporting on an outstanding event. The argument "in the US this does not count as a heatwave" does not count. -5C in the Antartic might count as a heatwave. We count notability by RS-coverage and not by arbitrary values (Any SNG rules that we do have use arbitrary values as a presumption that such coverage exits). The British obsesion with the weather is also no anti-argument, only an explanation of why certain things get covered in the media that would not get covered elsewhere. But interestingly that obsession travels well as elsewhere we see coverage of the British weather when the same type of weather "at home" would not be covered. All in all - Notability != importance, only coverage. Agathoclea (talk) 09:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify your conclusion? Do you mean that notability "does not equal" (or "signify") importance? And what does "only coverage" mean? Do you mean that just having sources/coverage guarantees inclusion? If so, it doesn't.

Let's all recall that notability alone does not a subject worthy of a Wikipedia article make. To quote from the relevant rule, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. (Emphasis in the original.)

Particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, we are told. From what we know so far, the contested subject is but information indiscriminately wiggled inside Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More relevant is also WP:NOTNEWS. Even if something gets a lot coverage in news sources, that coverage might not be sufficient to make an encyclopedic article, and WP doesn't have an article about everything that gets reported in the news, for example not every single one of Trump's tweets is reported on WP, even if they all get extensive mentions in news sources. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario FX (cancelled game)

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

There was no cancelled game, the article states that "no game titled Super Mario FX had ever entered development". It can't be cancelled if it wasn't even started in the first place. The article is based on a non-notable idea for a game with barely any information beyond rumors. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Super FX. -- œ^™ 07:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing more than a vague idea/tech demo that we know virtually nothing about. Not even worth a redirect considering the unnecessary disambiguation in the title, and the fact that Super Mario FX itself already redirects there. Additionally, most of the prose is already covered at Super Mario 64#Development. Sergecross73 msg me 16:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Super FX. Not worthy of a standalone article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 12:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Serge. The redirect at Super Mario FX is sufficient. The target already covers everything mentioned in the article under discussion, so nothing to merge. czar 02:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our Father's House Soup Kitchen

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

A good cause, but occasional mentions in local newspapers is less than is expected to meet WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as stated above, a "good cause", but in the end, trivial and not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Every soup kitchen doesn't get an article, see nothing extraordinary about this one, fails WP:ORG--Rusf10 (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Vinayak

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

Article/subject is non-notable Glrm88 (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be much better if you explained why. Not just making the assertion. Aoziwe (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless I am missing something? There seems to be multiple non trivial reporting in independent reliable sources, and including government level recognition of the subject, from my own searches, let alone what is in the article already. Aoziwe (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless the proposer decides to be a little less vague then WP:GNG and WP:BASIC are the only categories we can use to assess the subject. There certainly seem sufficient sourcing (hidden though they are amongst the OR), with either medium or substantive coverage. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -The profile is notable. Has been a Prime Ministerial People's Ambassador for two times and has been recognized and awarded by the Victorian State Government for his community work. Several media platforms including SBS have interviewed him for his accomplishments and ground-level work. As a migrant to Australia, his work and contribution highlight Australia's success in multiculturalism. He inspires Australian young people of Indian/South Asian origin to take up community work both as a hobby and a responsibility. Resilpra (talk) 3:34 AM (GMT) 15 May 2018

Delete unless I am missing something? There is a lot of sources but this is just promotion with primary sources (such as the Gove sites) and passing mentions. The article listed as herald sun but is actually local press is also another primary. It's news Corp writing about a news Corp award/promotion. Saying he is a JP in the lead is major puffery, nothing remotely notable there. Not of the awards mentioned are major. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The profile is definitely notable, no doubt about it. The question can be on the content and its structure or the tone. Leostamp (talk)

Keep This is a good enough profile to be on Wikipedia. No need to delete. The profile does not represent a business interest. Like artists and educators, community workers are also equally important contributors to society. Raj_vin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given your ownership issues demostrated here can I ask, are you paying someone to create this page, who authorises changes? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any ownership issues. I am just concerned that some people are keen to attack a community leader's profile. I believe the profile is notable and has been created by his fans and followers. I am not connected to the profile neither to the profile editors. No personal interest whatsoever. Raj_vin (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No personal interest yet you created the first version of the page that was deleted as pure promotion and for well over a year here have edited about very little else? Just want to promote mr vin for what? I note that you didn't answer the question, who authorises changes to this profile? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Keep~~ -The profile should be edited as per the concerns/questions raised. No need to Delete. The Prime Minister's Award for two times and the Victorian Government's multiple Awards are equally important. These are not conferred on everyone unless the person has contributed something extraordinary/special to the community. World's leading newspaper Times of India (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com), Australia's Leading News Organization (news.com.au), Victorian Multicultural Commission (www.multicultural.vic.gov.au), Australia Day (australiaday.org.au), Victoria University (www.vu.edu.au) and SBS (www.sbs.com.au) et al have carried his stories/stories on him. There is an increasing need to feature community workers and highlight their work on Wikipedia to achieve its objective of inclusion and social justice along with adhering to its https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars. Resilpra (talk) 17 May 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 01:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that two keeps are from low-editcount accounts.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The profile is notable and is backed by credible evidence from government and respectable media sources. User:Hariayu (talk) 21 May 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hopefully I am not missing anything. Seems like intentional targeting.The complain has shifted away from notability. May I request to Wikipedia Admin to close the discussion? User:Debadattaindia (talk) 23 May 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 08:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ranked list of Luxembourg cantons

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

This compilation of listicles article is superfluous. It simply gather's tables from the three existing list articles on Luxembourg cantons (population, area, and population density). It's superfluity is demonstrated by the fact that no one has bothered to copy data to it from those articles since 2005, despite them being updated in the interim, and this creates a confusing experience for Wikipedia users trying to gather information on the subject. Luxofluxo (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; this is an unnecessary CFORK. It's existed long enough I'm neutral on a delete-and-redirect to Cantons of Luxembourg. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced statistics and, noted as being estimates from 2005, well out of date. Ajf773 (talk) 09:05, 15 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 Griffin Technology. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proxi

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

Non-notable piece of software, fails WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only a MacWorld article. Then move Proxi (video game) to here. wumbolo ^^^ 13:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a few other sources about this Cnet, [31]. BubbleEngineer (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the coverage cited above by Bubble Engineer is substantial and independent. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - Not seeing enough coverage to satisfy WP:PRODUCT. Unless there's a good deal of coverage, it should be covered at the parent company's article, Griffin Technology. That article is also up for AfD. So redirect there if it's not deleted, and just delete if it is. There's also an argument for WP:NOT here. Wikipedia is not a software directory, and this is a page with no sources other than the company website. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge (redirect): Not notable. I would also suggest to the single sourced Griffin Technology but as noted that article is up for AFD. On a search I found the reviews for the restaurant to be four out of five stars and recommended in Chicago. I also found a new game, and a solution company. What became clear was that sourcing for the subject are not enough for notability. Otr500 (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ian McCallum#Discography. Sandstein 06:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take Me as I Am (Ian McCallum album)

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

Not notable, obvious WP:NALBUM fail, no sourcing found. 25 hits on Google, most of which appear to originate from WP and nothing on Google Books or even AllMusic etc. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - This is basically a (unsourced) track listing but redirecting is usually the modus operandi because they are cheap.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:58, 13 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. A Train^talk 20:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Sud Ladies Cup

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

Non-notable sports competition. I cannot find any sufficient sources to justify GNG. Furthermore, these matches are not listed by FIFA. For ex. the Haiti team [32]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant third-party coverage. Changing vote to merge with Toulon Tournament as suggested below. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain I feel it's a bit early to nominator the article, I would give it another month or so to see if anything news worthy or helpful pops up closer to the event. I feel woman's football needs a chance. Govvy (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Toulon Tournament. Searching on L'Équipe, the french sport newspaper, yields no result, and the official web page is a subpage of the toulon tournament web site. Comte0 (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not a senior tournament, it's a U-20 Tournament. Hence why it's not listed on the senior team's matches. Smartyllama (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again you fail to even remotely check. The link also shows u-20 matches. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is you who has once again failed to do an ounce of WP:BEFORE. That link doesn't even show the U-20 qualifiers. It's obviously not intended to be a complete list of U-20 matches. Smartyllama (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator asserts in this edit [33] that a subject is not notable if it's not proven to be so in the first few hits of a google search. So, presumably, if the first few hits are primary sources, mirrors, blogs, etc, there is no need to search any further, we should just delete it. That's a fallacious argument even when the subject is in your language, but far more so when it's not. It's a terrible approach that guarantees disruption, WP:BIAS against non-English subjects, bias against less recent subjects, and all sorts of other negative impact to the encyclopedia. At least he saw fit to remove the personal attack, in his next edit.Jacona (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why waste your and other editors' time. If it's deleted, it'll be re-created in less than 30 days. Hmlarson (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - could well be notable, but difficult to see how it is notable now when the tournament hasn't even started. Fenix down (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Can be restored if/when that time comes. Giant Snowman 15:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userify It doesn't appear notable yet but it may be WP:TOOSOON as it kicks off in under a month. Not worth keeping yet, not worth a full delete. SportingFlyer talk 01:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see any benefit to deleting an article like this right before the event happens. The article is short and informational, doesn't seem promotional, would be helpful to someone interested, and the event takes place in nine days. It doesn't seem in line with the spirit of Wikipedia to delete it now right when the information would be most helpful to people. Lonehexagon (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foresight Institute Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology

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

This prize fails N; this is almost all sourced from SPS, and listing out all the winners sourced only from the website of the organization that gives it, just turns this Wikipedia page into a proxy for that organization, and this is not what WP is for, per WP:SOAP. Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As of now, all of the article prose is supported by secondary sources, which support that this is one of the most prestigious and long-standing prizes in nanotechnology. The citation quotations are directly sourced from the Foresight Institute, as is the practice with other prize articles such as List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry. I feel that the Wikipedia article does have value-added over the Foresight Insitute's own website, in that it provides direct links to biographies, freely licensed photographs, and the rationales all in one place. Merging to Foresight Institute would be a second choice. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Antony-22, in this diff you wrote Okay, couldn't find any secondary sources about the communications and government prizes, so I'll axe these and deleted a bunch of content. The sourcing of that content is not different, from the bulk of this page listing the winners. Advocacy is skewing your judgement as a Wikipedian; this is alarming to me, and it should be to you, as a Wikipedian. This is something you need to try to self-manage, and the best way to do that is to aim with sourcing, using independent, secondary sources as much as possible, and summarizing them. If you find yourself building sections based on SPS or primary sources, it is a good sign for you that your advocacy is at play and you should reel yourself back from that, so the community doesn't have to spend time on stuff like this discussion or the edit warring or COIN filing that preceded it. Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main prize as a whole has ample secondary sources: eight of them are cited in the article, and they range from mainstream technical news publications to peer-reviewed journal articles. These sources would be satisfactory for any other topic in my long experience. I looked for secondary sources for the other prizes and didn't find them, so I removed them. So I'm essentially agreeing with you on that. But my impression of consensus is that secondary sources are not required for award rationales; this is the practice at the Nobel Prize list articles, on which the format of this article is based. No, there isn't a secondary source for every individual awarding of the prize, but I don't think that's required by WP:N or WP:SELFPUB. If this is wrong, then the required changes will go far beyond this article. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 15:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources used in the body of the article:

"Foresight Prizes". Foresight Institute. Retrieved 2018-05-07.
Marcovich, Anne; Shinn, Terry (December 1, 2010). "Socio/intellectual patterns in nanoscale research: Feynman Nanotechnology Prize laureates, 1993–2007". Social Science Information. 49 (4): 615–638. doi:10.1177/0539018410377581.
Feynman Prize: Dr Amanda Barnard, ABC (Australia), 2015-04-30, retrieved 2018-05-12
"CSIRO nanotechnologist wins top science prize". The Australian. 2015-04-23.
Finkel, Elizabeth (2016-09-26). "Michelle Simmons: a quantum queen". Cosmos Magazine. Retrieved 2018-05-08. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
"Feynman Grand Prize". Foresight Nanotech Institute. Retrieved 10 April 2011.
"Diamandis to chair Feynman Grand Prize committee | Solid State Technology". electroiq.com. Retrieved 2018-05-01.
Nicolau, D.E.; Phillimore, J.; Cross, R.; Nicolau, D.V (July 2000). "Nanotechnology at the crossroads: the hard or the soft way?". Microelectronics Journal. 31 (7): 611–616. doi:10.1016/s0026-2692(00)00036-7. ISSN 0026-2692.
Marcovich, Anne; Shinn, Terry (2014). Toward a New Dimension: Exploring the Nanoscale. Oxford University Press. p. 60. ISBN 9780198714613.

#1 and #6 are SPS from the organization. Irrelevant for an N discussion:
#3 and #4 and #5 and #7 are churnalism based on press releases; #3 and #4 are based on the same press release, each discussing one specific awardee (this is actually classic reference padding, something that paid editors do all the time; paid and unpaid advocates edit the same way which is we why ask about COI. Use of multiple instances of the same story is discussed in Wikipedia:Notability#cite_ref-3 as well as WP:INDY)
#8 is the definition of "passing mention" and does not contribute to N. For those who cannot access the paywalled article, there are two sentences mentioning the prize: 1) "Eric Drexler and numerous followers, e.g. Merkle) proposed a more revolutionary approach towards nanotechnology. The Foresight Institute in its requirements for awarding the Feynman prize for two nanoscale devices epitomizes the vision of this branch of nanotechnology." and 2) "Furthermore, the Foresight Institute “manifesto” (i.e. requirements for the Feynman prize), although—to their merit—not restricted to solid state technology “solutions”, is extremely restrictive in terms of the treatment of noise."
#2 is very good, and #9 is meh. I found those as well when I did my BEFORE. In #2, a historian of science, Anne Marcovich, used these prizes as a lens through which to view the history and state of the field. #9 is a long paragraph in a book by Marcovich, basically rehashing what she did in #2, so it isn't independent of #2 (sources should be independent of the subject and from one another - same issue as the two churnalism pieces off the same press release above). btw I looked and found no connection between Marcovich and Foresight - these refs are both independent of Foresight as far as I can tell)

So what we have here is one kick-ass source that would be great for generating content in the Foresight page about this prize. The rest is not helpful toward notability.

btw, this is what I mean above, by allowing high quality, independent, secondary sources to drive content creation. Something someone who is an advocate should be especially careful to do. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get it. I was going off of what I saw on other prize articles to gauge the consensus on sourcing, but I understand that sourcing requirements have become more strict over time, especially with the recent overhaul of the organizations notability guideline. I was asked to add secondary sources and I did so in good faith expecting that that would solve the issues, but I admit that I misestimated how stringently other editors would approach the sourcing. Nevertheless, as I've said before, I will accept whatever the outcome is of this AfD.

For the sake of explanation, I did avoid using verbatim copies of the Foresight Institute's press releases as sources, and I actually removed a few that another editor had added. I saw #3, #5, and #7 as original reporting independent of the press releases; in particular #3 is an entirely original radio interview by a mainstream media outlet. And in #8 I see two full paragraphs about the Grand Prize, not two sentences—maybe still not substantial enough, but certainly more than a passing mention. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Antony-22: As of now, all of the article prose is supported by secondary sources Are you joking? With two exceptions, every citation from 15 to 38 is to the website of the organization in question. Yes, this is largely not, strictly speaking, "prose", but that's a clever word trick if it's what you meant; if almost none of our article's content (not "article prose") can be verified in reliable secondary sources, then that raises serious questions... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the list portion of the article, it is now three exceptions (did you miss the Nature Nanotechnology one?), but there were others that were deleted because they were thought by Antony-22 to be unneeded. Again, should we delete the Featured List, List of Nobel laureates because ALL the sources come from Nobel? I was looking at an Oscar page and many of its sources came from the Academy, churnalism, or other non-independent sources. Is there some WP:??? which would clarify the guidelines for sources for award lists? If the list part was spun off into a "List", would that change the requirement? StrayBolt (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OSE: I've heard of the Nobel Prize, and you and your mother and her childhood dentist have as well; it is covered in millions of reliable sources, in quite a bit of depth, and honestly official sources are the best ones for who one what prize what year, given how much false information goes around about it because of how famous it is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So we agree that having official primary sources are good, like this article has, for who won when, what and why. And the large number of refs are because FI has a page for each year (while Nobel has one page for them all). I(we) have added some secondary sources for various years of the award from a variety of source types. Doing it for every year seems like overkill. I am still looking for guidelines for sources for award lists. StrayBolt (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"So we agree" - this is you misconstruing someone's objection, and I must note that it comes across as deliberately disingenuous. If it were in good faith, it would indicate a huge disconnect from norms of discourse and ability to understand what other people are saying, and be a clear red flag that you are not up to the task of participating in discussions on Wikipedia. Which is it? - David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 05:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the Foresight Institute is barely notable, if at all, and the sources for this award fail the test of intellectual independence. basically they are either the institute itself or pressreleases (churnalism). Guy (Help!) 09:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no substantive sources that this prize has real-world notability. If this is "one of the most prestigious and long-standing prizes in nanotechnology", then you'd expect third-party coverage to be more than passing mentions. If you look through the article's history and talk page, it's all desperate attempts to puff up its importance, and that of the fringe science in question. Paid fringe advocates repeatedly removing tags from the article and its bad sources - rather than finding good sources, because the good sources don't exist - are an extremely bad sign as well. If there was notability and substance here, none of that would need to happen - David Gerard (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Foresight Institute is notable. It is learned society like any other learned society, like universities, for example. It is not qualitatively or quantitatively different in substance, from a university like Cambridge University or something like the Royal College of Physicians. Different fields or subjects but same outcome, to advance mankind. The prize is not well known, which is unfortunate, as the Institute is at the bleeding edge of research, and as it has not directly benefited mankind yet, e.g. making nano machinery that will directly fix, e.g. arteriosclerosis, nobody is talking about it, so it not notable. scope_creep (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think WP:SOAP is an issue for this article. By Jytdog's argument, we should delete the Featured List, List of Nobel laureates. Sources can be better or worse than others and there is a gray area due to independence, reputation,… so I probably add more than other editors. When a receiving organization reports winning the prize, even if it just repeating the press release, it is imparting information acknowledging receipt. For almost any award, most sources would say, "X won Y prize" and then go on talking about X and what X did. They might use some superlative for the prize. Puffery is easily fixed, usually by deleting the word in question. I have problems with David Gerard's accusations,"… it's all desperate attempts to puff up its importance, and that of the fringe science in question. Paid fringe advocates repeatedly removing tags…". For me it is: attempts to rescue with sources, of an evolving fringe science that is now more mainstream, and volunteer advocate of Wikipedia (not sure if I removed tags). I have added a couple more refs (SciAm, newspaper) and will try to find more. At worse, this article should be merged with Foresight Institute. StrayBolt (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. StrayBolt (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a merger with Foresight is a reasonable outcome. ~~It is definitely time to dissolve the "rescue" project. I will be filing an MfD shortly.~~ This is the most blatant abuse of that project for canvassing that i have ever seen, I believe. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC) (strike for now Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

@Jytdog: This is my first time listing an article on "rescue". What should I say so it isn't canvassing? I was summarizing the state and asking for help finding sources. I will post a correction. StrayBolt (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Think about your intention. It is 100% WP:CANVASS. Since you are not a regular there i have struck my note about MfD, for now. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking for help finding more RS, if they exist. I recently found a couple more and had found #2 before. There seems to be many press releases, many variations of writing it, and many unrelated similar named items so it makes searching difficult. StrayBolt (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:CANVASS and do not try to bullshit the community. If you continue behaving this way you will end up with your editing privileges restricted. I am not going to reply here further to avoid cluttering this up. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@StrayBolt: Having come here because of your note on the canvassing board in question, I can say that your request "for help finding more RS" did not stand out at all as much as your claim to having already found several sources that "passed the critics", which regardless of your intent will be read by the ARS regulars similarly to how 1 John's intended readership would read "the world". Similarly, "satisfactorily" was an odd choice of words. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is absolutely non notable, and fails WP:SIGCOV and has to go the way of the dodo. scope_creep (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete The diligent source-hunting that has apparently turned up nothing to write home about makes me think this subject probably fails GNG. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect to Foresight_Institute#Prizes. Not independently notable and the parent article already provides sufficient information on the topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- we'll need to keep an eye on that to make sure there isn't just a huge cut'n'paste of this text into that - David Gerard (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 10:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all participants in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foresight Institute who haven't !voted yet. @Fixuture, Davidcpearce, SwisterTwister, Rhododendrites, Hang googles, DGG, and Northamerica1000: Feedback would be appreciated. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 10:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good secondary sources. Notability is always going to be partly subjective and dimensional rather than categorical. But IMO the Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology makes the cut --Davidcpearce (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the technically weak referencing, this appears to be the major prize in the subject. The references are good enough to support that, and that is the practical and appropriate criterion for notability of a prize. The general terms in the GNG substantial & independent need to be interpreted with respect to what can be expected in the subject. The recent tightening of the requirements for them in WP:CORP is a reaction to the promotionalism in that subject area, and even in that area they need to be used with reason. The purpose of the notability guidelines is to separate out what makes sense to include in an encyclopedia . They have no fundamental significance--where they are a good guide, they are useful. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Discussed some in textbooks and by universities.[34][35] Could the current references be improved? Sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are a bunch more [36][37]
- This lists the prize under nanotechnology developments[38] indicating it is fairly significant in the field.
- Anyway fair number more are[39] and [40]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Doc James rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contactually

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes is passing mentions, WP:SPIP, and routine funding news. Created by Special:Contributions/Kiwi0wl with few other contributions outside this topic. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Blackguard 03:36, 13 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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom nailed the reasons, agree to delete, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Stuart Bailey. A Train^talk 08:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dot Dot Dot (magazine)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, as there are no reliable sources, and since the magazine is defunct, there will likely never be any. The article indicates publication was very limited in the beginning. Vahurzpu (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After a bit more searching, I was able to find a single source. However, it is a small mention, and does not meet the threshold of mutltiple independent sources. The source is: Armin Vit; Bryony Gomez Palacio (July 1, 2009). Graphic Design, Referenced: A Visual Guide to the Language, Applications, and History of Graphic Design. Rockport Publishers. p. 104. ISBN 9781616736118.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stuart Bailey where this subject is covered from the opening paragraph. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Lion (miniseries)

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

HBO decided not go forward with the series. BoogerD (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source to confirm this? (you probably should've provided one before tagging the article). - ^theWOLFchild 03:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:58, 13 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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been a single update on the production in over two years. At this point the page should either be deleted or moved into draft space because it is clear that the secondary sources are outdated. The first ([41]) mentions that the miniseries was "set to start production next year" meaning 2016. The second ([42]) mentions that Phillip Noyce would direct a few episodes and that the series would "air on HBO next year" meaning 2017. We are now in the middle of May in 2018 (over two years after that last article) and there has been exactly 0 updates in the interim. It is very likely the production died during development as is common. This issue is worthy of at least a discussion. Oh and sidenote, Sean Penn was quoted recently two months ago as saying that he was thinking of quitting acting ([43]) for what its worth. – BoogerD (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, no source confirming "decided not go forward with the series.".

Delete per nom. Announced series does not satisfy GNG. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable since it has never officially entered production and any content is based on speculation. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is sourced and there is nothing supporting the nominator's opinion that the HBO cancelled the series. This shouldn't have been nominated in the first place. - ^theWOLFchild 06:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you that there might not be proof that the production is currently dead. I have no article to support that and I shouldn't have sounded so definitive in my nomination. However, there are other issues at play here as well. If the production has not had an update in over two years then Wikipedia:Notability must be taken into consideration. I'm not sure if the article needs to be fully deleted but it, at the very least, should be moved into the draft space until further news arises. – BoogerD (talk) 06:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft: - pretty standard way to handle shows that haven't been picked up/haven't had firm airdates announced. -- Netoholic @ 09:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - some recent sources have been added to the article after it was tagged for deletion. FYI - ^theWOLFchild 04:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither cheatsheet.org not harshlight.org are reliable sources. They’re just reiterating information from the initial Deadline announcement. A planned series does not meet notability requirements; an actual series does. —- Wikipedical (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Same as above, hasn't started production yet.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with other delete voters, this is a good example of WP:CRYSTAL Amsgearing (talk) 18:40, 19 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. czar 17:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isambane News

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

The article was created by a user with the sole purpose of advertising their news company (they're now blocked for having a promotional username). I've looked everywhere, and I can't find a single source about this topic except for unreliable primary sources, such as its official website, Facebook account, and YouTube channel, and the topic does not show any sign of great significance. Therefore, it fails WP:GNG and WP:NMAG. SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 02:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody ever going to vote on this? It's been a week now.--SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 16:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:A directory-like listing of a recent new enterprise, with no claim or evidence of attained notability. My searches are not finding the coverage needed for WP:NMEDIA or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struggle Da Preacher

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Nothing on the charts, never signed to a notable label, and no third-party coverage. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Lacks subatantial coverage 2n reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of chess gambits

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Article is almost entirely unsourced, what sources it has are self-published. Article is WP:REDUNDANT as the material is better covered in the articles on the various chess openings. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. INDISCRIMINATE does not apply: there are a finite number of gambits, and they are analyzed into the ground. Each linked article appears to be well sourced (from perusing a sampling). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively - Could you explain how it is indiscriminate? Is "gambit" ambiguous in a way I'm unfamiliar with? There are many books specifically about gambits/opening gambits (I had a few when I was a kid, in my desperation to avoid boring openings). That makes me think it's likely this passes WP:NLIST. It being unsourced isn't great, but is it controversial that the Blackmar–Diemer Gambit is a gambit? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources showing WP:NLIST (all books):
Gambit Chess Openings by Eric Schiller
The Complete Book of Gambits by Raymond Keene
Gambit Openings Repertoire for Black by Schiller (there are other books in this series)
Alterman Gambit Guide: Black Gambits 2 by Boris Alterman (there are other books in this series)
Key Concepts of Gambit Play by Yuri Razuvaev
Squeezing the Gambits: the Benko, Budapest, Albin, and Blumfeld by Kiril Georgiev
Gambits and Flank Openings by Sipke Ernst and Geert van der Stricht
Gambit Play: Sacrificing in the Opening by Angus Dunnington
Open Gambits by George Botterill
The Gambit Guide to the Benko Gambit by Steffen Pedersen (there are other books in this series) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of chess openings or Gambit#Examples. Some of these are openings with possible options that are gambits, that aren't discussed in the target article (the various Tarrasch Defense ones, for instance). power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

power~enwiki Would you object if I closed this as withdrawn by nominator? There is obviously a consensus to keep and it will save time. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. I'm baffled how this can be described as "indiscriminate", and it's well verifiable or verified by sources at the articles on the specific gambits. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not the greatest article in the world but the list can be defined by the entries in the ECO and sourced accordingly. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that it's not the best it can be — barely any information for a non-expert — but this is absolutely notable. I don't play chess but having read a single history book a decade ago, I can recognize a number of these. Clear selection criteria, blue links for all the headers, and the list as a whole is certainly covered beyond just the individual items; that's a clear keep for a list. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Doesn't look like I'll get consensus here, but I'll note that the classification of some chess openings as "gambits" is inconsistent. The Queen's Gambit is not a true gambit because there is no good way for black to hold on to the pawn. On the other hand the Two Knights Defence is usually not labelled a "gambit" even though the main line after 4.Ng5 (the Knorre Variation) involves the sacrifice of a pawn by Black; the term "Two Knights Gambit" is not used in any of the books I've seen. The list also includes some very silly openings and names which you won't find in any standard opening reference, e.g. Halibut Gambit, Colorado Gambit, Lobster Gambit. (Eric Schiller's poorly regarded Unorthodox Chess Openings doesn't count). This is why WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC) Edit: Quoting Hooper and Whyld's Oxford Companion to Chess: "The most general terms are Variation, Gambit, Defence, Opening and Attack; less common are Counter-gambit, Counterattack, Game and System..... these terms are not ... used consistently and they afford no basis for classification". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a content issue, or inclusion criteria perhaps, but not a notability issue. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly valid list subject. Artw (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:LISTN. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:34, 15 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Games Fleadh

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

Subject is not notable. It has not received significant coverage. Google books turns up no results relating to the event (apart from a single mention where an author thanks the organisers). The only reliable source in the article is an Irish Times link, which is now dead. A Google news search turns up only a handful of local articles and blog posts which list winners rather than thoroughly covering the event/competition itself. This can be seen in the article itself, as the most well-sourced section is the winners list. However, most of these sources are merely press releases by the colleges who won - these are obviously biased sources and not acceptable.

The entire rest of the article is has only three sources. Two of these are the event's website, and one is the aforementioned Irish Times deadlink.

As it stands, this event has received no international coverage, coverage by only one national newspaper (once, six years ago), and some very limited local and blog coverage which merely lists winners. Actual details about the event, structure, organisation, etc. is nonexistent. This hardly qualifies it for an article.

At the moment, it reads more like a (poorly written) advertisement (e.g. "Another Highlight of Games Fleadh, is GamesPro. GamesPro, is a panel of games and software developers, and companies, highly respected in industry" and "Every year Games Fleadh is supported by (but not limited to): Microsoft,EA, Demonware"). Klock101 (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article reads like a promotional piece for both itself and other companies. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree that this is poorly written(By myself). Content can be edited to be made read less of an advertisement. Article has informational content for a national audience. (FYI, I no longer have connection with this event) - Lynch3001 (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you had a connection with the event is a clear conflict of interest. You should not have created this article in the first place, and should probably recuse yourself from this debate - you're almost certainly biased, and your edit history suggests that you're a single purpose account.

If this event was noteworthy, someone other than someone connected with it would have made the article for it. My deletion nomination has nothing to do with the poor writing, that was just an addendum; the fact remains that there has not been significant coverage for this event, therefore it is currently impossible for this article to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The "informational content for a national audience" should be on the event's website, not Wikipedia - Wikipedia is not a directory or a means of promotion. Klock101 (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I did some major cleanup on the article, merging a bunch of unneeded sections together and fixing some of the POV content. It still needs work, but I think there is just barely enough sourcing available to meet the notability guidelines. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Unfortunately, I still disagree about there being enough sources to meet notability guidelines for an article. For example, the entire History section (which is the only particularly encyclopedic section of the article) has no sources whatsoever. The rest of the article is just a series of bulleted lists listing themes/winners, and again, are all sparsely referenced. The quality of some sources is still questionable (e.g. [5], [6], [7], and [9] were either published by the event itself or are self-promotional fluff pieces written by the winning colleges). An alternative to deletion may instead be a redirect to Limerick Institute of Technology, where a short section about the event could be included using the small handful of reliable sources that do exist. Klock101 (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Eastern Metropolitan Bypass. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby crossing

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

The references do not verify anything in the article, and there is an outstanding article for improvement since July 2015. There has been enough time to try and improve it, and nothing has been done. Delete per WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Master Of Ninja (talk) 07:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge A WP:BEFORE check does come out with a couple of paragraphs on it, e.g. E.M. Bypass (as well as hundreds of clear mentions), but I don't think sufficient for a full article notability. I would suggest a merge with E.M. Bypass , which (though it isn't currently mentioned) I believe it is part of. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[“SmithMag”-1] Abhat, Divya (February 28, 2017). "Baboons Are Ruthless Reproducers". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved May 13, 2018. For decades Cheney has documented infanticide in baboons in Botswana, where the behavior accounts for at least 50 percent of all infant deaths.

[2] ttp://www.esselnewsletter.com/news/facebook-india-partners-with-zee-bangla-for-sonar-sansar.html

[3] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/bengali/Catch-Sonar-Sansar-Awards-this-Sunday/articleshow/46565569.cms

[4] ttp://www.ozee.com/videos/event/sonar-sansar-awards-2017-march-5-2017-full-event.html

[5] ttp://www.anandabazar.com/supplementary/anandaplus/meet-the-new-stars-of-bengali-daily-soaps-1.634215

[6] ttp://www.tellydhamaal.com/neel-bhattacharya-happy-with-his-role-in-zee-bangla-stree/

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The God File}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films about outer space}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1Lib1Ref}}<!--Relisted-->