Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 March	21 March >

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant Kanojiya

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:NBIO, with most sources being primary. Passing mentions in several non-notable sources and a leading newspaper for a WP:BLP1E. MT Train^Talk 13:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable, poorly worded. The second issue of course could be rectified but that doesn't excuse the lack of notability. DesertPipeline (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4 or Delete per nom. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 13:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vaniya Nair/Vaniya chettiar

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

Unsourced WP:Original research on either Nair, Vaniya Chettiar, or the merged Nair subcastes, all of which have a long and problematic history of unsourced WP:OR on subcastes. Article creator contested proposed deletion (and removed all the maintenance templates) with the edit summary "fixed typo". The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The creator included evidence for Vaniya nair caste in malabar in reference section,Vaniya nair is mentioned in "Letters From Malabar : Jacob Canter Visscher" as one of the caste engaged in traditional works in malabar region.A simple google search of word' vaniya nair' gave results of matrimonial sites exclussively dedicated to this specific caste- http://vaniyamarriagebureau.com/about.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.201.6.90 (talk • contribs) — 88.201.6.90 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Could you log back in please, before posting here? The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sir, I have now included various sources as reference , Please pardon my mistake of deleting the proposal of deletion and maintaince templates as I'm not very much familiar with wikipedia usage🙏 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satvikgeetha (talk • contribs)

Hello mighty glen,

I have added several referances now,Are those enough for the article to not to get deleted? Or should i add more?

Cheers Satvikgeetha (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly-sourced article with no indication of notability. Vaniya Chettiar already exists, and Google Books/News throw up zero results for "Vaniya Nair". Google Scholar has [1] - an unpublished thesis with trivial mentions. The sources cited in the article are not adequate either. [2] - Trivial mention of "Vaniya Nair" - not enough to establish notability; the source doesn't mention that it's a "sub-caste". [3] - Mentions the term "Vaniya Chettiar", on which an article already exists; also a weebly page is not a reliable source. The creator states that [4] mentions the term, but I couldn't find it -- added a 'page number needed' tag. The following sources don't mention the terms "Vaniya Nair" and "Vaniya Chettiar": [5][6][7][8][9] (and most of these don't pass WP:RS guidelines). utcursch | talk 00:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 16:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what ^^ utcursch ^^ says. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Ovcharov

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

I didn't find enough sources to confirm his notability as an artist or public speaker. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity page. Sources are not independent and reliable, and I cannot find any that are in a search. A very hyped-up page.104.163.147.121 (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity page. No WP:RS. Theredproject (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There's clear consensus here that this should neither be deleted nor merged. There's some support here for renaming, but I don't see a clear consensus on that, so I'll call this NC on a name change. A name change doesn't require AfD involvement, so people can continue to discuss that on the talk page and/or be WP:BOLD. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elected transgender officials around the world

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

Guess I'll field the unlovely job of sending this to AfD again. - The future of this list was previously discussed here in December (under a capitalized article name), which resulted in a decision to merge to List of the first LGBT holders of political offices. However, nothing in that regard was done since, until the page was entirely redirected there by Aircorn, stating that a merge was infeasible because this list lacks information about whether or not listed people are first office holders. That didn't stick, either.

Based on the previously closing admin's comments that the notability of the list per se might be defensible, and the apparent infeasibility of a merge, I'd like to open this up for discussion again - because the article clearly either needs to be spruced up, merged, or deleted, but shouldn't remain in its current form. I have no opinion on which solution is best. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend "sprucing up" is the best alternative to deletion - the list is obviously note-worthy and does not fit nicely in any of the other lists. Gstridsigne (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The proposed merger/redirect is into "First LGBT elected officials." This is a list of ALL Trans elected officials, not just the first. The list is small enough to keep and maintain. Plus, trans folks have different experiences from other members of the LGBTQ community. And with the election of 9 trans folk in 2017 in the US, it is important to keep this list, especially as time goes on. Not to mention, superlatives that would be messy on "First LGBT elected officials" would not be so here. First transman elected, first tranwoman of color, first transman of color, et cetera. That would be quite a mess on the other page, but it works here. It does not break WP:OC#CATGRS, because Trans politicians may and usually do have different perspectives than even other members of the LGBT community - and their identity as trans folks will undoubtedly affect their policies. It does need a head article, but per policy "Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category may be created, but that it must at least be reasonable to create one." And it is reasonable that one can and should be created. Gstridsigne (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per the previous decision, the arbiter said that a case could be made for keeping, but needed reliable sources to suggest that trans folk are decidedly different policy wise than other politicians. That was pretty easy to find. Here is an article from the Washington Post which pretty much shows, that yes, trans folk have different experiences and therefore different policy goals. It is obvious, but here is a reliable source that clearly states that. Gstridsigne (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If transgender politicians are better covered in reliable sources than other politicians then sure if can be sourced, and if being a transgender politician is a rare enough occurance to merit listing, then sure. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Striking !vote by blocked sock puppeteer. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the nominator the first time, I'm not going to cast another vote this time — I still believe that the same issues apply as before, so I don't feel the need to rehash them all. But if this does get kept, the title still needs to be something different than it is (i.e. List of transgender politicians), and the list needs to be organized differently. It should not include non-notable town councillors and school or library board trustees and members of the boards of directors of non-notable organizations, and it should not contain repeated entries for the same person each time they won reelection — it should be restricted to people who have Wikipedia articles to link to, just as the other lists of LGBT people already are due to their frequent misuse as a venue for attack vandalism against non-LGBT people, and it should contain one entry per notable person, not three or four or five repetions of the same person each time they got reelected. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with many of your comments Bearcat. The fact that many of the names are repeated when they assumed a new office seems odd. And many of the current names do have articles. But being that 2017 was a watershed year for trans folks being elected to office, perhaps the even the non-note worthy names should be kept in that secion. 9 openly trans folk were elected on one day. That is noteworthy in and of itself. But I agree - it needs some work - but shouldn't be deleted or merged. Gstridsigne (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum it should only contain bluelinks, and a rename to List of transgender politicians would be wise. I am taking the pruning of non-notable entries as a given when saying keep. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been clearing out a backlog at Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion and my interest in this article came about through that. I have no opinion on the article except to say that if it is kept it needs some better inclusion criteria so only notable people are on it. I do have some other general thoughts though:

I stand by the merge being unfeasible. It would require me going through each individual in order to establish whether they were the first. Even doing that the number of minor city officials would completely outweigh the other list and create major WP:undue concerns. There is a reason no one has done anything with this article after 15 months.
Redirect was a valid option. A redirect is merely a merge where nothing is fitted. It is like me merging everything into that article and it then being deleted. The alternative would have been me completely messing up the other article. Believe me I have done hundreds of AFD merges and redirecting is the best option in over half of them.
This is the wrong way to overturn an AFD. It should have gone to WP:Deletion review. It is here now and editors have responded so it may as well stay. I will ping the participants from the previous AFD though. @Sandstein, Mineffle, Bearian, and Carrite:.
Editors !voting merge without thinking of the practical consequences of the merge is a common problem here, one I am looking to address (see User talk:Atsme/MR). For a similar example see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 March 20 for an old AFD that I put up for deletion review due to the impracticality of a merge.

In conclusion I have no opinion on whether this is kept or deleted. But please do not merge it. AIRcorn (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix. An important list, it seems to me. Carrite (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, and fix. --Enos733 (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't care what happens to the article, but the list is definitely a notable and sourceable one. SportingFlyer talk 05:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as long as in the data is somewhere on Wikipedia, does it matter where it is? Bearian (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Provided that common sense, logic, reason and policy is followed, it does not matter where it is. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)~~ — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have went through the list and made a few adjustments. I have deleted repeated entries and consolidated entries where they were appropriate. I added a few citations, and added a lead to the article detailing why this list can be differentiated from other lists like "First LGBT politicians." I also deleted individuals whom I could not verify were trans, like Anne Graham of Redmond Oregon, and others who seemed not noteworty like Racheal Luckey who was elected to a neighborhood council. I also added a comment on the election in 2017. Obviously, these are necessary changes but there still exists more work to be done on the list. I would suggest removing some of the tabs - and I will be introducing an infobox to link it to the Transgender series. I also encourage others to make changes. Gstridsigne (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, Notable topic for a list; probably to List of transgender politicians. Reywas92^Talk 07:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and support the rename suggestion to List of transgender politicians. Rab V (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the renaming to List of transgender politicians. Gstridsigne (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of transgender politicians. The article is a complete disaster content-wise. Some form of inclusion criteria will be established, as not every school board member should be listed in an encyclopedia. But that debate is for the talk page, not here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being that, even WITH school board members, the total of trans officials in the US numbers less then 30, it seems reasonable and noteworthy to keep them. The highest office a trans individual has held is in the DoD - but that was an appointed position. Danica Roem and Althea Garrison currently hold the title of trans person in highest elected office, and as far as trans men, the highest attainment achieved is City Councilperson by Phillipe Cunningham. So, yes, even elected school board members seem noteworthy - only 3 transmen have been elected ever, 2 of them school board members. But of course, as you said, that is an issue for the talkpage, not here. Gstridsigne (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G5d. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chethan Cheenu

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

Non-notable actor, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of satisfying WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yousuf Sifat

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

This player doesn't/didn't play in a full-pro league or a senior national team. See also WT:FOOTY#Asian Games. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the insanely low notability guidelines for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Player name doesn't appear on the first team of the pro-league club mentioned. Anhgamat (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 00:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nmami Agarwal

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

I don't think being nutritionist for celebrity grants notability. Notability is not inherited. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Except for the spammy awards this fails WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO at the moment, but has potential for WP-notability in the future under BIO. This is a good example of an article that has been created too early, I think. Any activity can confer notability, as long as it does.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harlem 6

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

This subject fails to meet the Music notability criteria. The article reads like a fan page, referenced only to self-published promotional material. A Google News search fails to find any references at all. NOTE: There are some articles about a different group called the "Harlem Six" who were charged with a crime - do not confuse with this musical group. Gronk Oz (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delet Poorly written Cruft trash, or some kind of promotional thing. Searched turned up nothing on them, and although this doesn't have to do with my rational, I'm getting wannabe Wu-tang clan and Brockhampton vibes from them. 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 20:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They are described in one sentence at List of Wu-Tang Clan affiliates and that might reflect all they have truly accomplished. They have a few official releases that were roundly ignored by the public and otherwise they've been on a few mix tapes and guest appearances. Their "new" album The Streets Made Us has been hyped as "coming soon" for four years. This poorly-written article is pure promotion, and rather desperate too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even without considering how bad the ~~article~~ fanpage is, the group is blatantly non-notable. The only "article" or "source" I could find was someone that found out that one of the members were charged with rape and then convicted on lesser charges after a plea bargain. [10] If the subject of the article gets convicted of sexual offenses and the only person to report it is a blogger, then the article probably has a snowball's chance in hell of surviving the AFD. Acebulf (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PROMO as it is spam enough for G11 Atlantic306 (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gurdeep Mehndi

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

Non notable Bollywood actor,music director and singer. Only thing makes him notable is that he is the son of Punjabi Singer Dalal Mehndi Sonia89f (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR. Notability is not inherited, and a couple of roles in minor films is not sufficient. --bonadea contributions talk 13:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bonadea above and WP:TOOSOON. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Burweyn

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

Another Somali "locality" we claim to be a town, blank spot on globe, etc., etc. Mangoe (talk) 11:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a place in Somalia called Burweyn, and it has even appeared in news reports [11] [12]. However it clearly isn't the subject of this article. Those sources say it's close to Buloburde which is in a completely different part of the country to the place this article is talking about. No sources to verify the existence of this "town", the one source calls it a "locality" which includes unpopulated places and nothing on satellite imagery. Hut 8.5 18:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete V, GNG. Not There. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7, author requested. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rishika Lulla Singh

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

Nothing here suggests notability - it reads more like a promo piece. There is a possibility that the company might be notable but nothing here suggests that the CEO is notable. A couple of interviews (preumsanbly press releases) and little more. Several refs about the company but that doesn't add any notability for the CEO. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Balli Gaabandhoor

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

Another day, another Somali "town" that's really a "locality" that points to a blank spot on the map, no meaningful GHits. You know the drill by now. Mangoe (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pnom. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of existence. Hut 8.5 22:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aga Syed Mustafa Moosavi

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

Mostly unsourced and (partly copyvio) hagiography of a Shia cleric in Kashmir which doesn't appear to credibly assert notability per WP:BIO. I've searched online yesterday and today for WP:RS on him: this is difficult for a bio of someone from Kashmir, and transliteration of his name is not given here or anywhere I can find online. So I've used a best-efforts transliteration of "آغا سید مصطفی موسووی", and can find nothing in WP:RS under that spelling either. His main claim to fame seems to be as the successor to his father-in-law, Ayatullah Aga Syed Yusuf Al-Moosavi Al-Safavi. I do see a few WP:RS in GNEWS about that similarly-named relative online, but WP:Notability is not inherited. The only source cited in the article that mentions him is the source of the copyvio, [13], an obituary from the organisation he founded and led, Anjuman-e-Sharie Shian, which I wouldn't consider to be a WP:RS. Some of the claims in the article, about a leadership struggle in which Iranian ayatollahs got involved, might make him notable if we could find some sources for it. But these might be in one of several languages. I tried to cut it down to a stub in the hopes of Farsi, Kashmiri, and Arabic speakers getting involved with referencing and proving me wrong about his notability, but was repeatedly reverted by the article's creator, a new editor. I'd be amenable to moving this to draft, if other editors think there's a good likelihood of verifying some of the claims made. But as far as I can tell he fails WP:BIO. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - per [14] [15], [16], [17] I suspect he is notable, and is usually referred to as Agha Syed Mustafa and leading a large part of this group following a 1982 split. His sons also went on to senior positions. I am holding off my !vote as I am not sure about the quality of the sourcing here, but my gut feeling is that he probably is notable - though the language issue (and naming variants, including the whole leadership family being named in a very similar fashion complicating things) as well as lack of on-line references (the 80s are actually tricky - much is not digitized, and you have less book coverage than earlier periods) might make finding stuff difficult.Icewhiz (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a help, didn't occur to me to search on just "Aga (or Agha) Syed Mustafa". And I forgot to mention, their surname is also romanized various ways online: so far I've seen Moosavi, Mosavi, Moosvi, and Mosvi. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The romanized Persian is usually Mousavi (regarding Kashmiri translits, well..... it seems to vary), but it seems that the last two components of the name ("Al-Moosavi Al-Safavi" - with or without the al-....) are often dropped.Icewhiz (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So are you satisfied with Icewhiz's response and the sources contained therein, The Mighty Glen? Would you like to withdraw the AfD or continue? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The response from User:Icewhiz was welcome, but I don't see how we can judge notability at this point, with the references currently cited. There's a ton of references added since the AFD began, but most don't mention him, and it's difficult for me to judge the reliability of the ones that do. I'd be content with a "no consensus" for now. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some do, but in passing. I suspect he is notable, but will not !vote bolded as I am unsure of source quality here and the level of my topic area knowledge (and given I just suspect notability). A no consensus would not be a bad close (assuming no experienced India/Pakistan editors weigh in).Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 12:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karanjeet Saluja

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

Non-notable filmmaker, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of satisfying WP:DIRECTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 12:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Alokmarina (talk · contribs) the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Sandhya2012. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G5 The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Garima Arora

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

Non-notable actor, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:NACTOR with some minor/uncredited role in some tv shows. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 07:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

O P Rai

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

Non-notable filmmaker, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of satisfying WP:DIRECTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not meeting WP:ARTIST. -The Gnome (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Alokmarina (talk · contribs) the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Sandhya2012. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MT Finance

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

An article on a finance company, sourced to routine funding announcements, brief quotation/interview with a founder, and industry award listings. These confirm this to be a company going about its business, but I am not seeing the detailed coverage needed to establish encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:CORPDEPTH. -The Gnome (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. The awards listed, such as the "Best Service from a Bridging Finance Provider at the Business Moneyfacts Awards" is trivial. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination is only proposing a merge. I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sunway Money

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

Merge with parent article. Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to National Party of Australia leadership elections. I guess I could also say "repurpose" since we currently don't have a page for it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Party of Australia leadership election, 2007

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

Fails WP:EVENT. Not all leadership elections are notable, and this was a total non-event; not really an election at all. St Anselm (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Quite untrue to say "this was a total non-event", the change of a political party leader is very important in the political landscape of a country. As such I believe an article detailing it is appropriate. This nomination just seems to be a solution looking for a problem. Kiwichris (talk) 09:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably not enough material for a standalone article. The potential candidates for leader and deputy leader should have their involvement mentioned in their articles, if not already done so. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a new article about National Party leadership elections in general. It's not an inherently invalid topic — people are interested in the leadership histories of political parties, and they do get media coverage — but it's not necessarily the case that every leadership election always needs its own standalone article even if there's very little that can actually be said about it because it was a one-candidate race that ended in an acclamation. A better approach is what we do with New Democratic Party leadership elections in Canada: we start with an overview article about the overall phenomenon of the party's leadership elections in general. It directly contains all of the content about the races where we can't really write or source anything significant, because they were one-candidate or "incumbent leader challenged only by a minor fringe candidate who had no chance of actually winning" formalities, and then the races about which we can write and source more content have their own separate articles which are briefly summarized under a "main article" link to the standalone subpage. This isn't an inherently invalid topic, but it doesn't really need its own standalone article — including a brief summary of it in an overview article is a better approach in this case. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bearcat. We have far too many of these leadership election articles (the sheer number at Category:Leadership elections in the Czech Republic is painful to see) and I agree that merging them into a single article on leadership elections within the party would be a good solution to having numerous articles that are never going to progress beyond a stub. Number 5 7 12:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as nominator, I agree. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Party of Australia leadership election, 2016. St Anselm (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Czech case is not a good example because it has categories for 13 different parties, and some of them would be pretty minor. Some leadership contests deserve articles: e.g. those for Australia's main two parties, because they are always choosing a Prime Minister or alternative PM. That said, the Nationals leadership is never such a big deal (they are probably Australia's 3rd most significant party, but well behind the main 2), so I don't care either way on the merge. Adpete (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Bearcat. Some of these elections, where they are contested, might be interesting enough to justify standalone articles, but for pro-forma processes like this where there is only one candidate, dressing them up as an "election" is borderline misleading for our readers. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a new article like above, this wasn't a true election and therefore doesn't particularly meet WP:EVENT. talk to !dave 15:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to National Party of Australia leadership elections. Content has been merged. czar 00:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Party of Australia leadership election, 2016

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

Fails WP:EVENT. Not all leadership elections are notable, and this was a total non-event; not really an election at all. St Anselm (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article could certainly use expansion to reflect the notability of the election. Upon looking at WP:EVENT criteria I'm not sure it does fail and think that nominating to delete this seems too hasty. Kiwichris (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a new article about National Party leadership elections in general. It's not an inherently invalid topic — people are interested in the leadership histories of political parties, and they do get media coverage — but it's not necessarily the case that every leadership election always needs its own standalone article even if there's very little that can actually be said about it because it was a one-candidate race that ended in an acclamation. A better approach is what we do with New Democratic Party leadership elections in Canada: we start with an overview article about the overall phenomenon of the party's leadership elections in general. It directly contains all of the content about the races where we can't really write or source anything significant, because they were one-candidate or "incumbent leader challenged only by a minor fringe candidate who had no chance of actually winning" formalities, and then the races about which we can write and source more content have their own separate articles which are briefly summarized under a "main article" link to the standalone subpage. This isn't an inherently invalid topic, but it doesn't really need its own standalone article — including a brief summary of it in an overview article is a better approach in this case. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bearcat. Some of these elections, where they are contested, might be interesting enough to justify standalone articles, but for pro-forma processes like this where there is only one candidate, dressing them up as an "election" is borderline misleading for our readers. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bearcat. We have far too many of these leadership election articles (the sheer number at Category:Leadership elections in the Czech Republic is painful to see) and I agree that merging them into a single article on leadership elections within the party would be a good solution to having numerous articles that are never going to progress beyond a stub. Number 5 7 22:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Bearcat, Lankiveil, and Number 57: The proposed merge target does not yet exist. Please create it or suggest practicable outcomes instead.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to relist comment I stand by my suggestion. Obviously I am not going to create a new article with content that duplicates that here, unless it is clear that consensus as expressed by these discussions is that it is a good idea to do so. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: This discussion (with the merge proposals) should be read in conjunction with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Party of Australia leadership election, 2007. In hindsight, I should have nominated the two articles together. St Anselm (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The content has now been merged into National Party of Australia leadership elections. St Anselm (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Maristela

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

In accordance with WP:BEFORE attempted to search for significant coverage for the subject of this biography article. Individual has received brief mentions in multiple reliable sources, but none where the subject of this article themselves was the primary topic of the reliable source. Additionally this article might fall under WP:SPIP. Therefore, I am proposing that the article be deleted at this time, as perhaps it is too soon for this entrepreneur to be considered notable. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mainly per WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Guiding Light. Content can be merged from history. Delete and merge is not possible. Sandstein 17:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Springfield (Guiding Light)

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

Almost all plot, no indication of real-world notability. Two of the three sources are about the show itself, and the third is about the ownership of a road sign. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. When you search for the article and you get there, there isn't any there there. -The Gnome (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Guiding Light. Some of the more factual info *may* be able to be moved into the main article, but the more crufty stuff can easily go. StewdioMACK (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing independent notability; then merge anything deemed interesting onto the main article. -The Gnome (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. none ofhe keep arguments are relevant to notability DGG ( talk ) 08:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dusty Rhoades

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

Aside from this being a self-published article, this guy's sole claim to fame is being a brony on the internet, something that hardly makes him unique or interesting. Jtrainor (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think this is self-published. Everymorning is the original author, I know I cleaned up from that. I have no added comment at this time about keep/delete but calling this "self-published" is not true at all. --Masem (t) 14:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from article creator I did in fact create this article. I am not Dusty Rhoades and I have never even met him, so, as Masem pointed about above, it is totally incorrect to call this article "self-published", nor are any of its sources self-published. Every morning (there's a halo...) 14:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this proposal for a non-notable brony; otherwise way too many people would qualify. But if everyone's notable, then no one's notable. -The Gnome (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mention in articles is not the same as substantial coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have no interest or real knowledge in this subject area, but for those who do, this subject does gets some pretty high level coverage - dedicated coverage from Entertainment Weekly is nothing to scoff at. I think it deserves a bit more effort than these lazy WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE responses above. Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. However, the article would benefit from more vigorous editing and sourcing. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suhai Aziz Talpur

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

Nothing special about 'being first' to do so. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep somewhat agree with nom but the subject appears to meet WP:GNG.1 samee ^talk 11:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 14:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for barely passing the relevant criteria for notability per source provided above. -The Gnome (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep There are more than 6 reference and among which two are from the renowned newspapers, if there is atleast one source the article is kept, and the article is about a public figure, moreover the article is about a female/woman from a underprivilidged area of Pakistan which got such a high success, I recommend Strong keep.Jogi 007 (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meet the guidelines of notability. Please note that Suhai Aziz Talpur is the first female Assistant Superintendent of of Police in Sindh province. See reference →[[18]].Arif80s (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rahmat Mia

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not appeared in a fully professional league or an international match. JTtheOG (talk) 05:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see Bangladesh Football Premier League on the fully professional leagues list but note it says on its page that it's a renamed league that in 2012 went professional. So if it is, he passes but if it isn't he fails. NZFC^(talk) 05:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Another promo piece strictly for the fans, the agent, and the club. -The Gnome (talk) 05:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet even our extremely low notability standard for football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect can be created separately. Sandstein 17:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fahda bint Falah Al Hathleen

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

No significant notability in her own right. No indication othat she is actually "First lady of saudi arabia' if such a thing even exists.

Only briefly mentioned in articles from March 2018 Heliotom (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further WP:INVALIDBIO "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)"Heliotom (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Saudi Arabia's King is clearly notable; his wife is not. Notability is not inherited; it's also not a dowry. -The Gnome (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources indicate how this person is notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not inherited Chetsford (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:POLOUTCOMES says that The spouse of the head of state or government is usually regarded as notable; although citing OUTCOMES arguments in AfD discussions is discouraged. This ref [19] notes Little is known about Princess Fahda, the king’s third wife, and like most Saudi royal women she is not seen in public. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Salman of Saudi Arabia. The only coverage I've found is the mention that she's the mother of Mohammad bin Salman, and the recent news stories about her supposed house arrest. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cenin cement

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

Unsourced for too long and sounds a bit promotional. I'm finding mostly press releases or passing mentions regarding the cement business, while the parent group appears to have a bit broader coverage for which there is no article. MT Train^Talk 05:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since its own creators cannot be bothered (they possibly cannot locate evidence of notability, themselves). -The Gnome (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I added one reference, and it does sound like an interesting proposition (although currently with unsourced claims), but I am not finding sufficient evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, although theres a bit of news out there about this company, and its admirable what they are doing, there doesn't appear to be enough for notability (where are the significant (environment) awards?), may be a case of WP:TOOSOON? Coolabahapple (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Aside from Nyttend, the "delete" votes were vague, but the "keep" votes were not substantial enough to override that either. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Shenzhen

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

We're not a travel guide. Completely unsourced comprehensive list of bus routes including fares and some timetables. WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOR Ajf773 (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This list is completely unsourced and would not be suitable for Wikipedia even if it were sourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Pick your reason; they're so many. -The Gnome (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator two EL's have just been added, although these are primary sources. Ajf773 (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NOTBUSGUIDE & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 04:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC) (Amended 12:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Keep notable as a spinoff from the Shenzhen transportation network. Timetable information needs to be removed. SportingFlyer talk 04:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being a spin-off of a network does not mean much unless it is notable on its own. At best, this would mean a redirect. -The Gnome (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we have numerous lists of bus routes like this – seven for NYC alone (see Category:Lists of New York City bus routes). No reason to delete this unless all other similar lists are also deleted. -Zanhe (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Lahore where multiple articles were bundled (including this one). This is an example of keep stuff because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ajf773 (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Zanhe - No reason to delete this unless all other similar lists are also deleted." is a perfect example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which is an argument to avoid at AFD, You might want to re !vote with an actual valid reason, Many thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 18:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion was closed as "delete", but is now relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 August 29.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I recommended "delete" for this article in March, and I still would recommend "delete". The article has no citations for any specific fact, just two external links. While it is true that there are other lists of bus routes in Wikipedia, there are also plenty that have been deleted, too. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Aberdeen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Bucharest, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Cardiff, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Devon, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Ely (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Framlingham, and so on. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I created this AfD and I still strongly support deletion. The editor who request their article to be overturned has made a number of large edits to the article but hasn't achieved the purpose of adding references nor making it appear less like a travel guide. The argument that bus routes for other cities is a dumb argument, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NOTINHERITED still apply. Ajf773 (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still support keeping this article as it cannot be used as a guide to travel around Shenzhen, doesn't actually fail WP:NOTTRAVEL, and bus routes can be encyclopaedic. SportingFlyer talk 17:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Do reliable secondary sources ever cover bus routes? Presumably some do, but they're not the kind of thing that routinely gets coverage, so we shouldn't have a list unless we can demonstrate that a bunch of the entries are notable. Also, note that the failure of the bundled nomination is no reason to vote to keep here: like many bundled nominations, that one failed because it grouped items that were too disparate to handle together, not because all of the nominated articles necessarily were deemed keepable. When the closing admin says The result was keep without prejudice to the renomination of individual list articles, that specifically means that it's appropriate to nominate an individual item from the list, regardless of whether all other similar lists are also deleted. Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Medice

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

I can't find good sources. New page by new account. [20]. Not seeing notability even with some famous work. Legacypac (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:MUS and seems to be the musician himself editing. StewdioMACK (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I got nothing on sources either. No sources from which to write an entry is pretty much the ballgame. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination for failing notability criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources have been updated to reflect information leif138 12:47, 20 March 2018

I appreciate the effort to look for more sources, as I would always rather improve an entry than delete it, but in terms of the reliable sources, these are pretty much the definition of trivial mentions—in Variety and Billboard, the subject doesn’t even get a full sentence. Unfortunately we just don’t have the material to write a “full and balanced” biography by Wikipedia standards (summarizing secondary source coverage of a topic). This material is better covered by music catalog sites like the ones referenced in the entry, or on the artist’s personal site. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Hôtel de Clermont

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

"Simple rooms in a modest budget hotel" according to Tavago. At least the page has a ref. Junk like this is why we need ACREQ Legacypac (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since sources supporting notability cannot be traced. -The Gnome (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many sources that discuss this modest hotel, because French superstar Édith Piaf lived there for several years at the beginning of her career. Several book length biographies of Piaf discuss the hotel, and it is mentioned in her Wikipedia biography. Readily available news stories discuss this historic Paris hotel, sometimes in great detail. Please do your homework per WP:BEFORE. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did before. I found lots of websites to book a room there. It's just a hotel. Notability is not inherited from who lived there. This little page does not tell anything about the place except some one stayed there. Legacypac (talk) 06:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nominator. As it happens, I know about this particular hotel from way back, personally. I passed by it in the early 1980s, too. The reason, yes, is that Piaf lived there for a while. But this is not the Chelsea, where many famous people, mostly artists, lived and congregated. All we have about this hotel is Piaf's stay there. Nothing else whatsoever. Does this make it notable?-The Gnome (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An appropriate place to mention it is in her bio. You might even consider a redirect of the hotel name to her bio. But there are presumably no RS discussing the hotel as a stand alone topic. Legacypac (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has few sources, connection to Edith Piaf can be included in her article. AidanSW (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The hotel can`t have an article because it is not that prestigious and the hotel does not have a particular history. And the fact that Edith Piaf slept there is not enough to be considered as notable. Moreover in this article there are only two sentences and it seems more like advertisingIrma2403 (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Top Secret (magazine)

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

Was prodded with the following rationale: Completely unsourced article. Searches did not turn up anything on any of the search engines. There were some hits on Books, but they appear to be about other magazines with this same name. Was de-prodded with the following comment, "contest deletion - the linked Polish Wikipedia article has some sources that appear prima facie to be independent and reliable, so this shouldn't be deleted without discussion". I looked at the Polish Wiki article, and the references seem to be non-independent of the subject, but I could definitely be wrong. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep while article definitely does require sourcing - Polish version does have a few notable, independent sources that can be used, notably gamezilla, galu, polygamia. If there's anything that can be questioned it's notability for English wikipedia, as magazine in question is rather unknown abroad (though one of more notable in Poland). SkywalkerPL (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia doesn't make any distinction as to where a subject is notable, or the language of sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we take any language source for notability determinations, but we also have different notability and source reliability standards than other Wikipedias. czar 04:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Polish WP page is mostly original research based on primary sources, and the three secondary sources mentioned are of unclear reliability (and the second, the interview, definitely isn't). If anything, I could justify a section within an article on the mag's publisher, if there were enough sources for that project. czar 04:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 04:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. czar 04:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Draft and Userfy if needed as although the Polish Wiki has some sources, the article is still questionable overall and would be best restarted or at least reworked to be better. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one who contested WP:PROD deletion, because it seemed that a discussion was needed to evaluate the sources in the Polish Wikipedia article. On looking at them further (and yes, I read Polish pretty fluently) it doesn't seem that there is much independence and/or reliability there, so this looks like a "delete" unless someone can do better than me (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) at finding independent reliable sources. If this is deleted I don't see any point in putting it in draft or user space - the point of Wikipedia being a wiki is that articles on viable topics are available to anyone to edit rather than hidden away where nobody will see them. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not currently verifiable. Publishing house and editors not in Wikipedia, which means the only way to verify any of this is with independent, reliable references. These are completely lacking in the article currently; according to 86.17.222.157 (talk · contribs) even the ones in the Polish wiki don't really do the job. ubiquity (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Police Commissioner of Jaipur

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

Not shown to have independent notability to Jaipur, but not even mentioned as a notable position or group in the main Jaipur article. Created by blocked user. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non notable people, non notable position. Ajf773 (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This isn't even an article on the person. It appears to be a general definition of the post its self. Doesn't need its own article. Edaham (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the above comments, a non-notable post held by a non-notable individual. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per the later, uncontested Keep arguments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smriti Nagpal

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

Another BBC 100 Women biography article whose main notability is being on that list and being on Forbes 30 Under 30. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article creator is currently blocked for creating promotional articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2018#BBC_100_Women for discussion on the list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I'd support a rule whereby sanctions are imposed on repeat creators of promotional articles in Wikipedia. They cause a significant amount of time to be wasted. -The Gnome (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly not alone in that sentiment. I think we would definitely need an RfC though, not only to be sure of community consensus for it, but also to make sure it's evenly applied (rather than testing it out piecemeal in individual AfDs). Innisfree987 (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Strong keep: Nagpal is included in the BBC 100 Women and Forbes 30 Under 30 listings, and has received significant coverage (Hindustan Times, Times of India, Deccan Chronicle) as a result of the former. She has received further coverage in Deccan Chronicle, ScoopWhoop and WION. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deccan Chronicle, Scoop Whoop and WION were all posted in 2017, after the 100 Women list was assembled for 2015. But yes, more articles like that and especially if they were dated pre-100 Women and pre-Forbes would be helpful. This one posted in 2015 is not helpful. [21] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upped to strong keep following improvements to the article. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Puzzled by the nom. She has two substantial profiles in major national outlets--the Times of India and the Hindustan Times--as well as the other recognition, including internationally. I realize the entry is not very well-developed in terms of drawing on those sources but AfD is about available secondary sources, not how they've been used to date... Innisfree987 (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Times of India refers to her listing in 100 BBC Women. Hindustan Times refers to her appearing in 30 under 30. Are there sufficient secondary source articles about her that show notability independent of her being listed? Not at the article as currently presented. The ones presented by Bilorv are potentially good sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Short answer: yes the sum of these sources is sufficient. I don't see why noting of this international attention in the profiles would be disqualifying. It'd be a problem if these outlets had simply run two-sentence pieces noting this recognition and nothing more, but instead they ran substantial profiles--detailed coverage rather than trivial mentions, which is our test.

I'm confident I could (and perhaps later this week will) prove the point that we have sufficient secondary source coverage by significantly expanding the entry based on the information these sources offer, but I'll admit I get fussed when it comes to that, as it amounts a major and non-community-approved revision to the standards of AfD, in which showing the existence of sources is supposed to suffice; they do not yet have to be incorporated into the four corners of the extant entry. That's only the standard for CSD. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article a bit based on the sources already there and those I listed above – though more expansion would of course be welcome. I agree that whether sources are included or not in the article is irrelevant for AfD, and WP:BEFORE gives clear guidelines on the level of searching for sources that is expected before bringing something to AfD. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the recently presented articles are helpful as they show she can be notable without having to be on those lists. If it were riding solely on BBC 100 Women and Forbes, it wouldn't survive the AFD.~~I'll go ahead and pull this.~~ AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC) updated 21:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My concern about going with anything post-BBC and post-Forbes would be that the notability would be circular. She's famous because she got listed which would then enable her to garner articles and press coverage about her which would then make her famous. I want to ensure she can be Wikipedia-notable because of what she is doing, that she is getting coverage not in response to the list. That the 2017 Deccan and later articles doesn't even mention her placement on such lists is helpful, but if there are any significant coverage articles pre-BBC list, pre-Forbes, let's get some of those added. Like Pieroni's article in 2014 [22] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As our policies currently stand though, that cycle isn't relevant to the worth of the sources. Discounting them on that basis would be a violation of WP:NPOV, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. We're not to substitute personal opinion for the editorial judgment of reliable sources. A given Wikipedian may personally think sources should not pay attention to the Forbes or BBC lists, but if one really objects to that, the place to take it up is with the publications in question--or, I suppose, with a differently structured encyclopedia. Wikipedia's project, though, is merely to summarize what reliable press and research journals see fit to cover. By our own declaration, we are not a reliable source, and instead we depend on those that are. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's more that they raise promotional concerns. WP:SPIP Forbes and BBC 100 Women articles are considered primary and it can be argued that 30 under 30 is promotional, and the articles immediately written afterwards are being scrutinized for short-term notability WP:NRV and WP:NOTNEWS. Is that scrutiny of discounting those considered editorial bias? If a reporter writes a "where are they now" article in 2017, that's fine, in fact, those are the news articles that are now serving as the basis for sourcing this Wikipedia article. They are removed from the promotional cycle of 2015 and are coming from a variety of newspapers that aren't influenced by Forbes or BBC Women or those related news agencies. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This exemplifies my bias concern. Forbes and BBC 100 Women articles are considered primary--by whom? They would obviously be primary if the subjects were publishing in Forbes about themselves, but we just received a helpful RS noticeboard opinion noting that the list is written by Forbes staff--and that independent notice is exactly the barometer you cite at WP:SPIP. The proposal we repeatedly depart from policy in handling this entry is concerning to me. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are primary in the "Here's the list that I made" sense. The news articles in reaction to it is secondary. The only thing that we can do is add a single line about it, and I have to apply my editorial bias in that I don't believe being on 30 under 30 or BBC 100 Women makes her notable for ANYBIO as discussed below. So I removed that line from the lead paragraph as consistent with the Forbes List query and response. But these are giving grounds for more RS articles to be written about her. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to soon tap out because the outcome is so clear, but before I go, "Here's a list I made"--or "here's an essay I wrote", "here's my journal article"--could be primary sources, but only if we were debating an entry about the person who made the list/essay/article. But instead we are using them on one of the topics of the list, not its author. For that it is a secondary source, and RS per noticeboard to boot. It and all related coverage in RS are valid secondary sources to contribute to WP:BASIC, and there's no need to meet ANYBIO if BASIC is met. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added additional citations to her article. There is extensive in-depth coverage of her in newspapers and on major websites like BBC, Forbes, Times of India and Hindustan Times. Easily passes WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." She passes WP:ANYBIO for "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" due to her work with people who are deaf. She passes WP:TEACHER because "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" while teaching Indo-Pakistani Sign Language. This impact of her work has been noted worldwide, which is how she ended up on so many lists of notable people. Lonehexagon (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'd love to change my opinion but I still see nothing of substance out there. The subject of the article is a teacher of sign language, the owner of a coffee shop, and a TV news presenter. And, no matter how many bits of text about her appear here and there, practically that's all there is to it! Trivial coverage of the subject in sources is not be sufficient to establish notability. Can we seriously claim that she's a notable person just because she does admirable work for speaking-and-hearing-impaired people? -The Gnome (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is in-depth and not trivial; whether or not you think the subject is trivial is irrelevant. Any of the three of the jobs you listed can qualify someone for an article here – see Category:Disability rights activists by country, Category:Coffeehouses and Category:Indian television presenters. Claiming that a subject is not notable "no matter how many bits of text about her appear here and there" is almost exactly the opposite of the actual notability definition of "those [subjects] that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time", which is judged by "evidence from reliable and independent sources" (WP:N). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sporadic and often suspect bits and pieces, and similar material, do not for notability make. You offer as retort to my argument about what the subject actually does in life the category of "coffeehouses", but this AfD is about a coffee house owner or sponsor; not a place. As to "TV presenters" and "activists", you misunderstood. I did not say she's not qualified because she's in these fields of activity. I object to her inclusion because, in my view, she's a TV presenter and an activist who's not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. That's all. -The Gnome (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does she qualify for WP:TEACHER when she is not an educator in the classroom sense or an academic? The TED talk describes her as an entrepreneur, or CEO and founder. And I'm not sure what you mean by disabilities activist. Do you have RS articles that indicate her occupation as teacher and activist? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you don't think she qualifies for WP:TEACHER, don't you think she qualifies for WP:GNG due to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject? [23][24][25][26] Lonehexagon (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WION article - "Smriti Nagpal, the owner of Atulyakala," (implies entrepreneur, not teacher)

Deccan Chronicle - "says the young social entrepreneur." (social entrepreneur)

Times of India - "started a social enterprise" (social entrepreneur)

Hindustan Times - "She is a sign language interpreter working tirelessly for the emancipation of people with hearing disability." (sign language interpreter)

So if she isn't going in as a WP:TEACHER, don't apply those criteria. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is worth pointing out, that Forbes which is an advertising platform, produces 41, 30 under 30 lists, every year. They are clickbait, and having checked with the Notable References noticeboard, they are non RS for BLP. They are not the high quality refererence that are required of a BLP article.scope_creep (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you provide a link to the noticeboard discussion? — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to see this discussion. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Me as well. I would really appreciate it. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 09:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is Forbes Site Subdomains as a Reference There is 41 of these lists produced every year, they are clickbait, and worth consideration. scope_creep (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although reading it again, it does say she is on the staff of Forbes, which makes it a valid ref. But I still think they are clickbait. When you have 41 of something, it is of zero value. scope_creep (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so the discussion actually just cites a Wikipedia article saying there are 41 lists (which I can't even see in the article, but I'll take it as true anyway); the "clickbait" and "non RS for BLP" are your own words and nothing to do with the noticeboard. Your argument "When you have 41 of something, it is of zero value" is patently absurd (I'm sure there are more than 41 New York Times articles published in a week and all are of value). Using the buzzword "clickbait" is not an argument. Besides, the article has 12 non-Forbes sources. Do you have any policy-based reasons to support your delete opinion? — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that per WP:ANYBIO, being listed on Forbes or BBC 100 Women is not a "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one has argued keep on the basis of ANYBIO. The BBC and Forbes pieces are merely two additional pieces toward WP:BASIC's requirement for multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. And Scope_creep has offered us an RS noticeboard opinion that the Forbes 30 under 30 list is RS, and written by staff independent of the subjects. (And of course BBC and Forbes are independent of one another!) Innisfree987 (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just wanted to add that I think she qualifies for WP:GNG due to "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject." [27][28][29][30][31] Lonehexagon (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bilorv I wasn't commenting for a delete, and I think it is a wee bit disingenuous to compare Forbes.com with the New York Times. From the Forbes article, Forbes.com uses a "contributor model" in which a wide network of "contributors" writes and publishes articles directly on the website. Personally I think anybody who work for the public good is deserving of an article, particularly on such a scale. scope_creep (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; your edit summary confused me. I also wasn't intending to compare Forbes with the NYT, just to show by analogy that I disagreed with your argument. Also, Wikipedia does not right great wrongs, so thinking that Nagpal deserves an article is not a valid reason to keep. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 02:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The current article speaks to notability backed with sourcing from various media outlets over more than one topic. Willie d troudour (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Cipolla

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

Article about a non-notable media personality created by an obvious WP:COI account. He's worked for a few notable media outlets, but not in a notable role. The article says he was the afternoon news anchor on WNBC (the radio station), but from what I'm seeing calling him an anchor is a stretch. It does not appear he had his own show, he just read the news during someone else's show. Rusf10 (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given timeframe, you might argue there could be pre-internet sources out there...but if there were enough to make a person notable, you'd expect there to be at least some reviews of the memoir they published in the internet-era. Not so much. So I'm not hopeful about getting adequate secondary sourcing for this. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lacking supporting evidence of actual notability. -The Gnome (talk) 05:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep'~~ A couple of searches quickly brought up 3 WP:RS articles from which I did a little sourcing of the outlines of his career. Editors willing to search will readily find more, but I think this now meets WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC) Withdrawing, I am NOT persuaded that a source from outside the NYC media market is required, but I do think we need either an additional INDEPTH profile or evidence of IMPACT. Some journalists get used as a model for a film or play, some get extensive mash notes in the texts of notable memoirs, some are the authors of impactful, widely-cited journalism. Cipolla appears to be a very popular on-air broadcaster. feel free to ping me to reconsider if anyone has a well-founded reasons for arguing keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A mere mention of a person in an RS is not indepth coverage. I can't see all the sources you added, but this one looks particular bad [32] They wrote a few sentences about him, that's not significant coverage as required by WP:BASIC. He also is not the subject of this article either [33]. Just because an article contains his name does not make it a good source to support notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first article that you object to provides several details about his career, and the New York Daily News is a reliable source for facts about journalists working at other New York News media; the article Tale of two Franks no Chip off the old block is a 3 paragraph career summary honoring this journalist on his 25th year in the biz, it is a sort of light-hearted riff on the fact that New York has had, over the decades, two journalists christened "Frank" Cipolla, although the other went by "Chip." The second source that you find objectionable is an article about an entirely separate topic in the New York Post that I used - legitimately - to source a single fact about Cipolla's career (employment at WWOR-TV). Detailed articles about his career that that you do not mention are feature article in The Hunterdon County Democrat "Award winning broadcaster Frank Cipolla writes about his experience at WCRV in Washington in new book" and a feature article (or perhaps an essay by a columnist?,) in the New York Daily News: :A Frank Look at Local News" , and, yes, I do regard this as the kind of significant, in-depth profiling that supports notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I additionally wonder whether we could find anything to indicate he got more than hometown coverage? I am of the opinion that hometown sources should count for something but I do think we need outside sources as well, to establish broader notability and satisfy the “balanced” account requirement in WP:WHYN. Somewhat like (but less severely than) the campus newspaper of a subject’s alma mater, hometown-only sources may be tilted toward giving an inflated impression of a subject’s significance, and outside sources provide a means of cross-checking. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, although The Star-Ledger is New Jersey's statewide newspaper. I have certainly not run exhaustive searches, there are ohter Franks Cipolla and I just looked for th elow-hanging fruit, er... serch words. I add that the New York metropolitan area is an awfully big media market with thousands of working journalists who have never had a profile in one of the city's major dailies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean about New York-area recognition feeling more significant, but since we don't pass articles on New York restaurants or plays that only have NY-based coverage, I don't know why we'd do differently for bios. If he really is more than locally significant, I'd expect to see that external sources did also take notice, and I haven't here yet (and I did look for quite a while myself last night). Innisfree987 (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable local broadcaster.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he's not even notable for the local NYC market. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Napalm Death. (non-admin closure) Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 12:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Herrera (musician)

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

Non-notable member of several bands Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing the relevant notability criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Napalm Death per the consensus of the previous AfD. Satisfies WP:NMUSIC criterion 6. --Michig (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No mention of subject and you know, but refuse to acknowledge, that the criteria simply states that the subject may be notable, not that the subject is notable. No sources to support notability, therefore, the subject is not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - "No sources to support notability, therefore, the subject is not notable" - are you seriously claiming that the absence of sources in the article has any bearing on notability? --Michig (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - You never answered the question posed to you. And no, there is no significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In other words, there are no sources related to the subject that confer notability. They do not exist anywhere. That's why they're not in the article. Are you seriously saying that a subject that has virtually nothing written about him is notable just because he sits behind a drum kit in a few bands that happen to have articles on Wikipedia? What sort of encyclopedic entry can we have about the subject who is just mentioned in-passing when the bands are discussed? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - You didn't pose any question to me, but we have accepted notability criteria that have been arrived at by consensus - while I don't agree with all of them, I don't think it unreasonable to express an opinion in favour of keeping on the basis of satisfying those accepted criteria. How can you possibly state that there is no significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Have you searched through print copies of all music and drumming magazines? Of course you haven't. I found one that lists him on the cover as the subject of one of the main articles. --Michig (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        You're right that I didn't pose a question. I called out your manifold ignorance and assumed you would defend it. You didn't. The consensus is still is that the sources for a stand-alone article need to exist. You are the perennial holdout to changing the wording so we placate you and deal with your objections every time this come up with a subject. As for not finding any sources, I've done my best to find some, and unless you can provide some, we have to conclude that they don't exist. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        This is the problem with you Walter. When someone disagrees with you, you just start throwing around insults and wikilawyering. Your failure to find sources that exist has been demonstrated time and time again. Your record at AfD is poor. Finding sources to confirm what is in the article is trivial. Worst case here should be a merge and redirect to Napalm Death, probably the world's pre-eminenent grindcore band for which he has been the drummer for over 25 years and for which he is best known, and you should have considered this option rather than wasting everybody's time with an AfD. --Michig (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll wear that hat. I don't mean to be insulting though. You're right that I haven't found any print sources. But then again, neither have you. I'm happy to leave it there and let the closing admin decide how to interpret the criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Napalm Death. The above argument got out of hand, with Michig being the professional voice of reason, and WP:NBAND #6 is valid. Walter was less professional but raised some good points on how the drummer has not been covered much in the media in his own right, beyond being in multiple notable bands. I suggest that Napalm Death be updated: when that article proceeds to 2003 it can say that Herrera joined Venomous Concept as a side project, then a little later it can say that he subbed temporarily for Anaal Nathrakh. The current Herrera article has a few sources that can back this up. In fact, I will do that right now. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Napalm Death is done. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andre DiMino

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

promotional article about a non-notable activist. Neither him nor the group he runs are notable. Rusf10 (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very promotional. Should be speedied. scope_creep (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked in a news archive, a couple of hits from coverage a few years back, mostly in what I take to be a local ethnic publication called the Italian Voice. He was part of an activist organization called the Italian American One Voice Coalition that I have just tagged for notability. DiMino and the Coalition were riled up about [[Jersey Shore (TV series), which shone a brief but intense spotlight on the New Jersey Italian American community, portraying it in a very negative light. One sympathizes, but sympathy does not confer notability. Lacks sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Augusto Amador

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

City Councilman, fails WP:POLITICIAN. I see nothing more but mentions of him in the local newspaper. Rusf10 (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. City councillors do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just because they exist — we accept city councillors in global cities as notable, but in any city outside of that class a city councillor has to be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to be deemed significantly more notable than the norm for most other city councillors. (And no, the fact that Newark is a suburb of a global city whose councillors are accepted as notable does not give Newark's city councillors the global city treatment, either.) There's simply nowhere near enough valid sourcing here. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another article on a non-notable municipal politician in New Jersey.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weather Watch

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

Doesn't seem all that notable. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 02:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 02:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 02:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per complete lack of secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No Deletion The website has just been created and is a future resource for my company. There is little reference because it's basic company knowledge I know that isn't anywhere else. I have the current references for line everything together so it makes sense. Not only this, IT JUST STARTED, therefore, I will update this as more ideas flow into my head. JustinWx

@JustinWx: Independent and reliable sources are needed for articles in order to demonstrate WP:NWEB (in this case)/general notability. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JustinWx: Your rationale is another reason for deleting this article. Wikipedia doesn't help newly established companies to gain publicity. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete per nomination~~ Strong delete [Edit: Opinion changed after learning this is done for publicity, while Wikipedia is explicitly NOT meant to promote anyone and anything. -The Gnome (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)] The criterion is notability. The subject of the article was recently born, so WP:TOOSOON also applies. Perhaps, the nominated article is about a worthy start-up effort; but Wikipedia is not here to promote worthy business efforts. -The Gnome (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explain publicity — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinWx (talk • contribs) 17:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Most of the explaining one would need has already been done by you. You wrote: The website has just been created and is a future resource for my company. That's a clear admission of a WP:TOOSOON violation. Then you admit to lack of notability: There is little reference because it's basic company knowledge I know that isn't anywhere else. You have my best and sincere wishes for success with your venture; if this gets indeed deleted, come back when the subject is notable enough to have the article reinstated. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just created company has no place n Wikipedia because we don't advertise for startups and newcomers. Wikipedia documents what has already been published about. Utter lack of independent reference shows failure of meeting the criteria or inclusion. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The company was created in 2016 and serves over 30 thousand people on Facebook and Twitter, therefore, small is not applied and when I say, I am meaning new to Wiki, not a new company. Reliable sources for a self-owned company is not do-able. Also, I’m not trying to get publicity, just a source with everything about the company in one place. JustinWx —Preceding undated comment added 12:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources for a self-owned company is not do-able. - yes, it is. Anything can potentially be discussed in depth in a reliable source. If a company (no matter who owns it) doesn't have significant coverage in independent sources, and doesn't meet these criteria, then it isn't notable according to Wikipedia's definition and there can't be an article about it. --bonadea contributions talk 13:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sourcing does not appear to exist, at least I am not able to find it. --bonadea contributions talk 13:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All sources will be removed, what “reliable” types should I add then, in what form? JustinWx —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATED Source list has been updated, 3 complete sections have been added and filled in totaling 6 different sections (not including sub-sections) JustinWx (Edited Comments)}} @ 10:24, 20 March 2018 (EDT)

Reasons for deletion include the following:

- Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion

- Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria

- Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish

- Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)

- Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)

- Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)

- Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed

- Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)

- Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons

- Redundant or otherwise useless templates

- Categories representing overcategorization

- Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the non-free policy

- Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace

- Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia

None of the topics above apply to this case.

1 - Doesn't Apply 2 - Doesn't Apply 3 - Doesn't Apply 4 - Doesn't Apply because "without any relevant or encyclopedic content" --- which, relevant content is provided 5 - Doesn't Apply 6 - Doesn't Apply 7 - Doesn't Apply 8 - Doesn't Apply 9 - Doesn't Apply 10 - Doesn't Apply 11 - Doesn't Apply 12 - Doesn't Apply 13 - Doesn't Apply 14 - Doesn't Apply because the content is suitable. JustinWx —Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability (criterion 8) has not been shown, that's why it was nominated and that hasn't changed. The sources in the article are primary, published by the company itself, and independent sources are needed to show notability. There's also a large amount of unsourced info, some of it rather promotional, in the article. A deletion discussion generally lasts for a week and is closed by an administrator who has not participated in the discussion, and who looks at the arguments that are based on policy (ignoring those that are not). --bonadea contributions talk 07:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I will look into finding some sources from other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinWx (talk • contribs) 11:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JustinWx You're doing a lot of things wrong. (1) You do not get to decide that "the discussion is over" and that is because we have not a consensus to retain the status quo and, moreover, you support retaining it. (2) The criteria you listed are trumped by WP:N, the rule that brought the article to the stand. (3) You are confusing the process for deleting articles with its companion process for speedily deleting articles. And (4) in discussions such as this one, where who says what is important, please try not to forget to have your input signed. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DISCUSSION OVER, DELETE @The Gnome Sorry, I'm new to all of Wikipedia and don't know the difference of deletion. I am also frustrated as a page I made may be deleted because it's a smallish community. I didn't know the size of the company, which changes the number of references, had anything to do with a simple Wiki page. If you want, delete it, I don't have any more time to find references to my company. It's simply not worth my time and effort for this attack. -JustinWx

There is no "attack." No one is out to do harm to the company or you. You're correct about Wikipedia having rules that might seem a little bewildering to a newcomer, but when you get down to it, the rules here are quite straightforward and simple: To get on Wikipedia, a subject has to be, more than anything else, notable. And notability is supported by third-party sources; not our own efforts. That's about it; the rest of the rules are built to support the functioning of the encyclopaedia around these basic premises. I fully understand the frustration in seeing something close to your heart, such as a nascent company to which you've dedicated a lot of work, getting deleted from Wikipedia. I can only sympathize. I wish you, JustinWx, and your company, such success in the near future that your company makes a triumphant comeback here and questions of notability no one will dare raise. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very insufficient secondary coverage. In-house blurbs, social media posts, and incidental mentions do not notability make. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No better sources were found. Other keep !vote did not give an indication of notability. Just because an article is well-written does not mean the topic is encyclopedic. I wish the inverse were true! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Zamani

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

Subject only mentioned in passing in WP:RS. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Provided better sources can be found.TH1980 (talk) 04:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect – To Caspio. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page content has been updated and meets WP:BIO guidelines. BEMMBA (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a keep. It's a well-crafted WP:BIO page. Cas Anya (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pointer: Cas Anya has stated: "I’m part of Caspio’s Content Marketing team." -The Gnome (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being a promo piece as clear as they come, on a subject that does not meet notability criteria, and, naturally, with bad sourcing. Plus, whenever one watches contributors suddenly making a rare appearance out of the woodwork with the single purpose of defending the existence of an article, one has to get extra suspicious. -The Gnome (talk) 06:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Are you saying that editors need a minimum amount of contributions before stating an opinion? I always believed it was the quality of a User’s contributions not the quantity that carried more weight. ShoesssS ^Talk 08:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have exactly the same opinion as you do. And I keep defending the same position about contributors. There is only one difference and that concerns sudden and single-purpose appearances in debates, i.e. RfCs, AfDs, and the like. Knowing about episodes of concerted efforts to sway Wikipedia towards this or that direction makes me suspicious. We've seen canvassing, phony accounts, kamikaze accounts, you name it. That is all I'm saying. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:ANYBIO & significant RS coverage not found. Not independently notable of Caspio and there's nothing better. I would oppose a redirect / merge, as it's not a good practice when it comes to BLPs. The company may get renamed / acquired, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Musskan Sethi

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

WP:TOOSOON, and doesn't meet WP:ENT as an actress or model. Just one film and now she's Wikipedia-notable? No major awards. Biography is highly promotional. Can this be thrown into draft until she becomes notable? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not meeting WP:ARTIST. One, non-leading role in one, rather minor film does not for Wikipedia make. -The Gnome (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huncho Jack

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

As a group, the collaborative "Huncho Jack" duo fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG, as the group has not gained any notability other than releasing one collaborative album. All of the information on the page can be found on Huncho Jack, Jack Huncho, and their discographies can be found on the pages of Quavo and Travis Scott's individual discographies. BAPreme _{(T / C)} 01:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete As per above. Huncho Jack as a group has received no notability, it is only notable one album Huncho Jack, Jack Huncho which is known for the group's members Quavo and Travis Scott. "Huncho Jack" itself is not notable. GodsPlaaaaan (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC) Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Killiondude (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing my vote; there is obviously enough information and the fact that their album charted makes them notable, not sure what I was thinking earlier. 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 17:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Charted band. Their work has been widely reviewed. Clearly notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the group passes criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC with a charting album in numerous countries. Also, they have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I would agree with nomination if the album was by "Quavo and Travis Scott" or something along those lines; in that case, it would clearly be better covered on their individual articles and the one about the album. But the artist of the record isn't "Quavo and Travis Scott," it's a group called "Huncho Jack," and the fact that the group's members are notable in their own right doesn't mean "Huncho Jack" isn't.
Examples of this line of thinking:

Jack Ü is its own article, since the album was released under that name
The Throne is a redirect, since the album was released under "Jay Z and Kanye West."

Madg2011 (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poor nomination, the group easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. KingAndGod 18:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baaror

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

Another unverifiable Somali blank-spot-on-the-map. Interestingly, this gets a bunch of semi-legitimate hits because "ba aror" is supposedly the Somali name for some Commiphora species (at least if you believe the CRC World Dictionary of Medicinal and Poisonous Plants. Mangoe (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability per nomination. Let's hope this trend goes out of fashion soon. -The Gnome (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not There. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic fintech dictionary

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

Per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Clearly doesn't belong on Wikipedia per WP:NOT and WP:STANDALONE. Waggie (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Ajf773 (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTDICT Coolabahapple (talk) 06:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and above comments. -The Gnome (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was intiailly thinking this would be about a book, but the list format fails NOTDICT. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear enough it's not appropriate here, but I'll take the opportunity to ask, is there really ever a situation where something gets transwikied to Wikitionary per "Handling problems" on NOTDICT, or in practice does most everything just need deletion? I ask because I realize I wouldn't even know how to check if something was appropriate for transfer (especially in a case like this where it's not one term but a list), but maybe the answer is, it basically never is? Innisfree987 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. per G7 by Espresso Addict. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 05:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Through the decades

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

Part of title was mistakenly not capitalised SirCrow (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This is eligible for G7, as SirCrow is the only editor of the page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per above — IVORK _Discuss 02:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laz Ki Bohol

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

A supposed (but acto geonames unverified) populated place which is in a rugged area even more barren than usual for Somalia. Searching on the two variants produces nothing meaningful in either case. Mangoe (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let's hope this trend goes out of fashion soon. -The Gnome (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not there. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Holmes

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

Delete: as non-notable former actor. Quis separabit? 01:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not meeting WP:ARTIST. -The Gnome (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Normally, I'd find some way to invoke WP:ATD and call this a merge, but there's cogent arguments here why we can't do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time vortex (Doctor Who)

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

Appears to be entirely fictional technobabble-cruft that fails WP:GNG. The only major mentions of it are in primary, in-universe sources such as books written for/about the show._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~I find it hard to believe this isn't covered in some reliable sources somewhere. I seem to remember it was an important element of the show. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)~~ — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is an in-universe thing. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 22:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In universe is usually a delete argument isn't it? Szzuk (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The page has no references which is usually a delete from me but given that Doctor Who is so well covered it probably could be referenced so I will hold my vote for now. Szzuk (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really this needs the attention of someone who knows Dr Who sources, since looking for such stuff on the web is like looking for a grain of sand on a beach. Prince of Thieves (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lacking any outside sources that support the subject's independent notability. It's not enough that we have an article dedicated to TARDIS, we now must have an article about what the machine does? Whatever text there is of interest should be added to the TARDIS article and that should be all. -The Gnome (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a spinoff of the TARDIS article, it's a sort of space time thing that is regularly featured in episodes and is also the title sequence. The TARDIS, and most other Dr Who thingies travel in and out of it. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. To Tardis, no refs but has a place there. Szzuk (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot explicitly recommend that a piece of text is added to a Wikipedia article without any references to outside sources. As far as I know, it is forbidden. -The Gnome (talk)

Comment I would like to argue to keep, but on balance think that there is not enough notability to justify a standalone article. However there is useful material here which could be merged (although there is some more trivial and non-notable content that could go). The question is where? My concern about merging with TARDIS is that the Vortex is not just related to the TARDIS - other time travel devices in Doctor Who travel through it as well, such the devices used by Captain Jack and River Song. If the spin-off fiction is included there are also a number of stories which feature races that live in the Time Vortex. However I am not sure where else it could go. It is pity that there is not a Time Travel in Doctor Who article or Scientific Concepts in Doctor Who article that could cover this and also the Blinovitch Limitation Effect. Dunarc (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The material might indeed be useful (I'm not qualified to pass judgement on this) but where are the sources supporting it? As we all know, Wikipedia is not a publication of essays. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You make a fair point and I totally agree about the essays point - it is one of the reasons I think this could be covered in briefer format in another article rather than kept, although as I say if this is decided as the way to go I do not think the TARDIS article is the best place. The lack of references is an issue (and I meant to note that in my previous comment so thanks for flagging up), but I think that could be overcome as there should be reliable sources out there for some of the points. Dunarc (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Plotcruft, see WP:NOTPLOT. No apparent notability because of no sources. Do not merge unsourced content. Sandstein 17:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Jackson (political adviser)

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

Richard Jackson doesn't meet the GNG; without substantial coverage in reliable sources. His role is not high-profile enough to justify an article by virtue of office, covering the Prime Minister's visits and media operations. Ralbegen (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the refs are about him. A relatively recent article which should not have been created. Szzuk (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - he's an MBE and notable as a lwyer. Bearian (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: My understanding was that per WP:ANYBIO, honours aren't sufficient for inclusion, though they can indicate notability. Very few of people awarded MBEs in this year's NYD honours list would meet inclusion criteria. And I'm not sure how he's notable as a lawyer? It doesn't appear that he's ever practiced law... Ralbegen (talk) 09:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honours are sufficient for inclusion per WP:ANYBIO, but in Britain this is accepted to include the CBE and above, two levels above the MBE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. Changing my !vote to delete. Bearian (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing the general-notability criteria. Notably, we have pictures of two prime ministers but can hardly locate images of the article's subject, something that, in our day and age, rather fatally undermines its notability claims. Terminate without stare decisis: There's always time in the future. -The Gnome (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - easily meets WP:POLITICIAN with articles by the BBC, The Times, The Guardian and The Independent. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: In the references in this article, the BBC reference is a caption to a seventeen-second video. I don't think that constitutes significant coverage. The Guardian lists him for his honour, which definitely isn't significant coverage. The reference to the Independent does not mention or cover Jackson at all. The Times piece is the only one that constitutes significant coverage, but it's not independent of the subject as the GNG requires. The author is Jackson's old boss, as she mentions in the article. Ralbegen (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the article creator was blocked as a sock, voting multiple times in this afd. Szzuk (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

strike the sock votes ?? already done ?? look only at the article to see if salvagable; WP:POLITICIAN states: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office qualify his office handling media relations for PM and other offices he held in the past meet that requirement. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a politician and never has been. He's an adviser. Szzuk (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm...a similar argument is over at Donald Trump. Oh, and the article under discussion here clearly states: "Jackson returned to politics as part of the 'Remain campaign’s media team.[5]" He made politics his career - and i would think he'd have to be enough of a politician to be a political consultant. You don't have to agree. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK - but for the purpose of the close I'll say he's never been elected to any office in the UK. Szzuk (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ralbegen's forensic work above is quite conclusive on the issue. -The Gnome (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nope. Per Who's Who In Cameron's Resignation List? "Political allies and spinners, a "stylist" and the referendum campaign losers - the full list of those honoured by David Cameron." Jackson was a Member of the British Empire (MBE), honored by PM Cameron which satisfies verifiability and adds to stacking for notability. He was Head of Operations under 2 PMs, Cameron and May; a rather notable task. The Times writes about him, "Ms Perrior says her “fixer” Richard Jackson, second right, helps the PM avoid campaign pitfalls". There are other RS to stack for multiple coverage over his career - example: BBC, "Tory spokesperson complained about Mark Clarke in 2008", and Telegraph. Also see WP:GNG & WP:NNC which states:

...it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
...There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online...
...The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of some lists, which restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.

He meets the requirements of both GNG and POLITICIAN. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: The GNG says that a topic needs to receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. None of the sources presented meet those criteria - there's some trivial coverage in independent reliable sources and some significant coverage in non-independent reliable sources. So I don't see how he can pass GNG? And I don't think that his office gives him notability by WP:POLITICIAN. It's not so much national political office as working for a national politician, and there are plenty more non-notable staffers that would be covered by such an interpretation. Regardless: at the head of the additional criteria it spells out that "meeting one or more [additional criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Ralbegen (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme Sorry but Jackson is not notable enough according to the criteria for a mixed martial artist. Yep, those criteria are about as relevant to the subject of the article as is WP:POLITICIAN. Mr Jackson is not a politician. (I've no idea if he's into karate chops.) As to the quotes from the rules you copied above: The 3rd one is irrelevant, and you omitted the important portion from another, i.e. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material (emphasis added). Perhaps significance is in the eye of the beholder. To me, this is a background actor in an ensemble play. (Should we try WP:ACTOR?) -The Gnome (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not like voting without adding something new to the discussion but Ralbegen has covered every reason why this subject fails our notability guidelines. Difficult to honestly challenge the rationale.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. And per above discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very strong keep - clear references. He is an advisor, and line manages the director of comms, Robbie Gibb who also has a page. Clear notability through references

— 81.139.166.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Envy (American rapper)

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

I can find very little information on this person other than rap profile sites, and the claim that he had a number one single isn't true according to billboards own site https://www.billboard.com/music/envy , which instead says his song peaked at 87 for a week 💵Money emoji💵^Talk 01:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not meeting WP:ARTIST. Per nomination, this one tried to sneak in on false pretenses, as well. -The Gnome (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the number-one single was apparently on Billboard's Hot R&B/Hip Hop Singles Sales chart, whatever that is, and the claim came straight from the press release from his record company. Richard3120 (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That confirms my suspicions that this was just a shady promo article. 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 20:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. with no prejudice against creating an appropriately named redirect J04n(talk page) 13:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Church of God in Pakistan Satrah

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

Definitely doesn't meet GNG, and the only results I can find when I look it up are christian wikipedia mirrors (Which exist, apparently) 💵Money emoji💵^Talk 00:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing notability criteria, for containing no references whatsoever, and for not being seriously bothered. -The Gnome (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of churches in Pakistan. samee converse 17:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Samee: What would the redirect be useful for? Just handling a link from the disambiguation page Church of God? – Fayenatic London 22:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Redirecting is fine with me, but the redirect should be Church of God in Satrah, Pakistan because the person who created this article messed up the; Pakistan and Satrah should be switched. 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 18:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. is this article about the Church of God in Pakistan, or the Church of God in Satrah? The article says it has 200 churches in the country and other statements as well seem to be about the whole of Pakistan. Is Satrah just its headquaters? If so, the title should be simplified to Church of God in Pakistan. If the 200 churches figure can be verified in independent RS, that would make it notable to my mind. SpinningSpark 23:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is about a church in some place in Pakistan called Satrah, and the person who made this has a poor grasp of english. The article title is definitely incorrect, I'm 100% sure. 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 00:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete @Spinningspark and Money emoji: I believe Satrah is somewhere in Sialkot District.. Anyhow Google search doesn't produce any substantial information about the church. Merging also does not make sense because I can't see its significance. --Saqib (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Enid, Oklahoma#Media. J04n(talk page) 13:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PEGASYS-TV

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

Local public access tv station that does not pass WP:GNG. I cannot find any independent reliable source coverage, the article is currently sourced to the station's website. Rusf10 (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found independent coverage. Operate three channel. Has been around for decades. Clearly notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One article in the local town newspaper? [34] There needs to be multiple sources to pass WP:GNG and those sources would hold much more weight if they were regional or national.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the guideline: "Most television stations that produce original content should be presumed notable for Wikipedia purposes." This channel broadcasts original programming on three stations. The guideline also notes importance to regional market which is well established here with substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are referring to WP:BROADCAST which also says "Public access cable stations are not presumed notable unless they serve a major city or a large regional area. For example, a statewide public access channel, or a channel for all of New York City could be presumed notable. A "governmental access" feed that runs a text generator of community events plus city council meetings for a population of 50,000 is not generally presumed notable, but can be conferred notability by meeting the standards set forth in WP:CORP." Since Enid is not a major city, this would fail the guideline. The portion you quoted refers to over-the-air broadcast stations, not public access cable stations.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The station broadcasts multpile channels and while one is a bulletin board the others ibclude orgigibal programming. Channels with original programming are presumed to be notable. That's what the gyideline says. If you want it modified you should take it up there. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all its not a guideline its an explanatory supplement that says "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Second, it clearly is referring to broadcast stations, its say "The vast majority of over-the-air television stations serve a large regional market, often covering millions of households. The regulatory authorities, such as the FCC in the United States, grant each station a monopoly on a substantial portion of radio spectrum to carry their programming, and most metro areas only have a dozen or so television channels. In turn, the TV stations must devote certain hours to public affairs and educational programming, and grant equal time to political candidates. Because of the public interest served, most television stations that produce original content should be presumed notable for Wikipedia purposes." (emphasis mine). This falls under cable television which I quoted above.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Enid,_Oklahoma#Media where the subject is already mentioned. Not independently notable and no need for a separate article. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 13:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Taylor (entrepreneur)

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

Delete: as blatant promo article; this is not LinkedIn. Quis separabit? 00:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable.Acnetj (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as subject seems to (barely) meet WP:GNG. We probably need criteria specifically for business people and entrepreneurs. -The Gnome (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a bit notable. George Custer's Sabre 05:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep. "Not a bit notable" seems harsh considering the guy founded one of the most known websites and while he has not received the most coverage, what can be found should be sufficient to satisfy WP:BASIC:

Thanem, T. The Monstrous Organization. Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN 9780857938176 – via Google Books.
Gallo, Carmine. 10 Simple Secrets of the World's Greatest Business Communicators. Sourcebooks, Inc. ISBN 9781402206962 – via Google Books.
Virk, Rizwan (2017-10-19). Treasure Hunt: Follow Your Inner Clues to Find True Clues. Watkins Media. ISBN 9781786780577 – via Google Books.
Vas, Gratian (2017-12-06). Little Things about Great People: Inspirational Stories. Notion Press. ISBN 9781946390417 – via Google Books.
"Buffalo.dj, new start-up from Monster.com founder Jeff Taylor, will represent and record DJs". Boston.com. Retrieved 2018-04-04.

At the very least, a redirect/merge to Monster.com should be considered. Regards So Why 10:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as no one has commented on the references recently provided
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep wrt notability guidelines, would also agree with a merge and redirect to Monster.com. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 06:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fullerenes in popular culture

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

The article is pure listcruft. Most entries are things in books or video games that are named after fullerenes - this content belongs on pages for that piece of media, if anywhere on Wikipedia. Possibly the fine art section would have some value at Julian Voss-Andreae, and the Google logo fact is already mentioned at Fullerene#Popular culture, but I can see nothing else of significance. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 00:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Nothing there. At best, this should be a subsection of the article on Buckminster Fuller or his creations. -The Gnome (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely bizarre article, I'm shocked something this obscure and niche to the point only 4 1/2 people who have ever existed would care about it exists. The fact that it overcame 1 previous AFD is even weirder.💵Money emoji💵^Talk 14:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, the previous AfD was over a decade ago, though I'm not sure what the site's criteria for inclusion were back then. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 15:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, back then the only reason some things could be kept was because they existed. Due to how much this site has grown over time, guidelines have tightened- I guess it isn't that weird.💵Money emoji💵^Talk 16:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ick. The indiscriminate trivia it burns. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 17:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aztlan Underground

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Three album entries at AllMusic and none have reviews. Same at Reverb Nation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete NN, Run of the mill band article. Wikipedia:Bringers of Darkness. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)~~.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete / Weak Delete~~ (see comments below). A band that has been making culturally-relevant music for almost 30 years, but I'm sorry to say that they have attracted little notice in their lengthy history. The article states that they have been mentioned in several newspapers and magazines, but those are typically concert listings and name-drops within lists of similar bands. They have appeared in Los Angeles Times on several occasions but usually as brief mentions within articles that are actually about the scene that they came from. They have indeed been nominated for awards ([35]), which gets them kind of close to WP:NBAND #8, but not enough. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete per nomination and comments above.~~ Reluctantly changing vote to Weak keep. The sources supporting notability still barely, if at all, meet WP:ARTIST. For instance, a few of Michig's sources quote duplicated text, some others are mere mentions in lists, and so on. As to duffbeerforme's sources: The pdf file from learcenter is not accessible, the website itself presumed MIA; another is a duplicate of Michig's, the only truly valueable mention in the media I can see; the discog list is totally unimportant; and The Village Voice article is offline. No, the bits do not "add up" but, still, the benefit of the doubt is given for this is a band whose modest claim to fame was before the internets conquered the world. -The Gnome (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage from a wide range of sources, e.g. [36], [37],[38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. Some of the coverage here is brief, but enough isn't. --Michig (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I detected most of Michig's sources during my own search and would argue that, except for the chapter in It's Not About a Salary, the coverage generally consists of name-drops of this band as an example band within the music scene that is actually being discussed in the respective text. I would not consider this to be significant coverage of the band itself, but they could be a contender for WP inclusion based on these several brief mentions in books. Therefore I have changed my original vote above to "Weak Delete". ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Their early years are not the best years for online coverage but there is more than above. They are often name checked as an example of mexican rap.

The Encyclopedia of Native Music above (Michigs first) is good

This is a good source.

This (warning pdf) essay from American Quarterly gives them decent coverage, paints them as significant.

Those three alone seem good enough for GNG

this might be OK

Kun, Josh, THE DECLINE OF EAST L.A. CIVILIZATION r, Village Voice

Writes a bit about them in his review of some compilations including Sociedad=Suciedad.

D3 Entertainment looks like it could be considered an important label for WP:MUSIC [48].

All the bits add up. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Improve (Changed Vote) - Michig and Duff have convinced me to change my vote. There is evidence that the band gained notability in their early years, but the article needs to be improved to reflect that. In fact, if the result of this AfD is to keep, the admin can contact my talk page and I will improve the article with the sources found in this debate. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There was also a compelling argument to merge, this decision should not preclude continuing that conversation on the talk page. J04n(talk page) 16:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zion (The Matrix)

AfDs for this article:

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

Made up of entirely unsourced plot summary, fails WP:NOTPLOT. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the Keep arguments in the last discussion were either not based on policy or did not provide sources that prove notability. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Selective merge~~ to a page about the extended universe of The Matrix, though I'm not sure what that page is. The page is filled with unsourced fancruft, but it's a term that should redirect somewhere. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep no merge target has been suggested, and the article is improved and makes a clear claim of notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive coverage in numerous sources including Philosophers Explore The Matrix; The Matrix Revealed: The Theology of the Matrix Trilogy; The New Yorker; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, an article in the New Yorker specifically about the article's subject would be a game decider. But here's what I found: Here, Zion is only mentioned when the action is described; nothing incisive. Here, the only mention is a brief description of it (i.e. "the metal subworld of Zion—caverns and corridors in grim blue and black, as cold and wet as a New York subway tunnel in winter"). And here, in a focused analysis titled "Revisiting The Matrix", there is not one single mention of Zion. The search then disintegrates into irrelevancies such as a New Yorker profile of Cornel West, where it is mentioned in passing that he appeared in two sequels playing "a Zion Elder." It's not easy for me to argue against sentiments of passion and obvious love for the subject but none of this establishes independent notability, sorry. -The Gnome (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, cut the in-universe cruft, then maybe split later if something worthwhile can be written about the topic. Regardless of how many scholarly analyses of the Matrix trilogy have been produced, this is still a fictional location about which nothing has been said, at least in this Wikipedia article, but in-universe plot summary. If Andrew Davidson or anyone else want to actually expand the coverage of the real-world background, influence, reception, etc., well ... they can still do that if the article is merged into a larger list about the Matrix universe, and then maybe once enough sourced content (but no OR, please...) has been added it could be split off into its own article in the future. (Although I honestly don't see that happening.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep contra Hijiri above, GNG only requires discussion of the topic by published sources independent of the fictional works in question; it does not require coverage of its "real-world background, influence, reception, etc." Let's not slide goalposts around because some editors feel that IDONTLIKEIT trumps SOFIXIT. Newimpartial (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: Good grief ... you can't be serious, can you? We have other criteria for standalone articles than (a liberal interpretation of) GNG. If you want to GOFIXIT, then fire ahead (at least if you are able, as you seem to claim to be), but don't accuse other editors of not understanding the policy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of Hijiri's opinion about that, that is a strawman argument. You are refuting Hijiri's statements, not the justification for deleting it, that it has no independent notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your strawman, ZXCVBNM, I see at least a half-dozen published non-primary sources. That is independent notability, per policy. Newimpartial (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A half-dozen published non-primary sources, saying what? GNG, which appears to be what you are referring to, is a guideline and not a policy, and it emphasizes significant coverage, which is not the same as simply parroting in-universe plot information gleaned from primary sources. If you seriously do not understand WP:PLOT (which is a policy) and WP:GNG (which you are misquoting and referring to as a policy), then your !vote will almost certainly be discounted by the closer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, Hijiri. NOTPLOT specifies that WP article should not be confined to a summary of plot information, to be appropriate to an encyclopedia. What it certainly does not say, is that only sources discussing "real-world background, influence, reception, etc." count for WP:N, which is what you asserted above. As long as the work is discussed in reliable sources, and that discussion is not limited to summaries or trivial mentions, then it meets GNG. If the resulting article doesn't meet PLOT, then the answer is SOFIXIT. Newimpartial (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the only sourced content that can be added to the article is plot information, then the topic fails both GNG (a guideline that requires significant coverage) and NOTPLOT (a policy that requires articles on fictional topics include real-world information). I already stated in my initial !vote (which I get the impression you didn't read before jumping in to !vote against) that there is a possibility that sufficient sources exist to create an article that conforms to our policies and guidelines, while you have somehow managed to support keeping despite an apparent belief on your part that such sources don't exist. You can't tell me to SOFIXIT when you yourself are agreeing with me that sufficient sources probably do not exist. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial, first of all, are you sure you understand the meaning of WP:SOFIXIT, or are you confused by the initials? That guideline is meant to encourage contributors to be bold, and act, in improving or trying to improve Wikipedia, as best as they can, or as they see fit. It is not a command to fix all things wrong! Second, and more importantly, that guideline does not lay the burden of fixing something wrong on the editors who bring that wrong to the community's attention! If the contested article about Zion needs more sources to establish its subject's independent notability, then those who believe in the subject's worthiness should simply get off their ass and try and find some sources (instead of, for example, calling other people "fucking idiots"). I hope you understand. -The Gnome (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And said editors, notably Erik, have done exactly that. But like Hijiri you appear to be mistaking the current quality of an article for its notability. Where at least two independent, reliable sources exist for a topic, notability may be presumed, as in this case, and contra your current WP:BLUDGEON. Newimpartial (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as bludgeoning my point, I already stated I'm taking my leave from the voting process. So, that's DOA. I'm focusing on notability; quality of text is a different issue and it's not by itself a cause for the guillotine. My comments above are quite clear but perhaps you should read them again: "If the contested article about Zion needs more sources to establish its subject's independent notability, then those who believe in the subject's worthiness should simply get off their ass and try and find some sources, instead of, for example, calling other people fucking idiots." So, it's all about sources, see. And, by the way, wikilawyering and insults do not get you far here. Trust me on this. -The Gnome (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to put too fine a point on it, Gnome, but the issue at AfD is the existence of sources, not the inclusion of sources in the article (except for BLP); this aspect is fundamental, and is not "wikilawyering". Also, if you believe that not !voting somehow means that WP:BLUDGEON does not apply, that is a tendentious reading, to put it mildly. Finally, I haven't insulted anyone, here or elsewhere on WP, and don't really see why you would imply that I have. Newimpartial (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that you consider editors who don't argue to keep this article "fucking idiots". I do disagree with such editors' stances, but there is no need for that vitriol. I strongly suggest that you strike this out and focus on content. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not write "fucking idiots" in my comment above; look at the edit history! My comment seems vandalized by a script that changes "trumps" to "fucking idiots"; I will figure out who did that when I have time. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Newimpartial (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize and have struck out my comment. It was a script gone awry. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The script turns "Trump" into "fucking idiot". Some miscreant hacker is out to insult the U.S President, from the looks of it. Where's the Secret Service? :-) The Gnome (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See this older Gawker article about the same problem. Fun browser scripts that change words can cause problems.104.163.147.121 (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First things first, Newimpartial: I accept you were not responsible for the insults. I accept what Erik's saying. Now, about the article. All you need to do is look at the nomination and the subsequent debate: The article has been brought to the stand on account of it being all plot without sources. And that's what we've been discussing ever since. Andrew D. brought forth a bunch of citations ostensibly showing independent notability. I disagreed. And my point stands: Anyone who wants to FIXIT should go right ahead and FIXIT! No one else is obliged to. End of story. Otherwise, so far, and not to put too fine a point on it, we don't seem to have sources that support independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to disagree. From the current state of the sourcing, it seems to me that the racial politics of Zion (the Matrix) would support a reliably sourced article all on its own. Newimpartial (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lacking independent notability, for not having notability of its own as a subject. Notability is not contagious. Not everything about a notable subject, e.g. The Matrix, is necessarily notable on its own. -The Gnome (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Erik, for the prompt to look up the contested article one more time. The post-AfD changes made by contributors improve significantly the quality and the extent of information in it. They hardly change its status of significant, independent notability. The most I'd offer as things stand is that, instead of complete deletion, the choice of a Weak Redirect to an appropriate section of the Matrix philology. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is more than sufficient. WP:GNG says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.... 'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." It is obvious that there are multiple sources that make more than trivial observations of the setting. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I critiqued some of the proffered sources in my response to Andrew D., above. The rest, such as those offered now in the article, do not IMVHO make the case for a stand-alone article. But I've already taken enough space here. And in view of the discussion deteriorating through the use of insults ("fucking idiots", etc), I'm taking my leave. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable setting per WP:GNG since there has been significant coverage from reliable sources focusing on Zion. I've removed the garbage in-universe content and have added a few sourced observations about Zion to the article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To update, the book Apocalyptic Transformation: Apocalypse and the Postmodern Imagination analyzes Zion and its people in some additional ways. Others are welcome to expand on the Wikipedia article with this source and others. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that Erik has addressed the main issues. Otherwise I would support merging and making the page a redirect, but this content (which seems to pass WP:GNG) is much better suited to being on its own page. ‑‑Yodin^T 14:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can the editors Zxcvbnm, LaundryPizza03, Hijiri88, and The Gnome please review the article in its current condition? The in-universe content has been replaced with out-of-universe content, and this is not the extent of the sources used. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Matrix (franchise)#Influences and interpretations. Part of a larger fictional work, should be treated in context. Sandstein 17:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We would not merge a film article to its franchise article to put it in context. How big does a fictional city's article have to be to warrant standing alone? A general "Influences and interpretations" section can discuss many elements in brief, but a stand-alone article can explore a character, a setting, or a theme in depth. There is bound to be redundancy, but the difference in scope allows for greater focus on the given element. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This conversation is still ongoing...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete. Argument By Checklist is a piss-poor excuse for keeping, when the items on the checklist are so minor. Nothing would be lost by leaving in the main article. --Calton | Talk 17:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Yodin. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As written, it's a bit stubby, but it does indicate that the fictional setting has been discussed in film criticism. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RS are sufficient, GNG is met, the rest of the haggling is not particularly relevant, except that per WP:ATD-M if not kept, it should be merged into a reasonable target. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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