Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 April	15 April >

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 keep. Consensus is that the topic meets Wikipedia's notability standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NewTV

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

Local cable access tv station, does not pass WP:ORG. Article was created by a WP:COI account. Other than a few Boston Globe articles, there doesn't seem to be any reliable source coverage. I do not believe the Globe articles alone are enough to pass the WP:AUD requirement of WP:ORG. Rusf10 (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources - Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep , WP:HEY, I did a little expand, soruce. This is a community TV station in an upscale town where the population appears to have the time and resources to make like Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney, Let's put on a show!. There is RS coverage of 3 decades of NewTV's programs, controversies, impact, and financing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY, my ass, this is the typical e.m. gregory, "let's find any source that as much as mentions the subject and call it indepth coverage". I must remind you that the Boston Globe is a local source here. Whether the town is upscale or not has nothing to do with it.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Boston Globe is the major regional daily. It has run many INDEPTH stories about programs and controversies at this station, only some of which have been added - there has been such a lot of coverage and over so many years and topics. I made, merely, a beginning.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has 28 sources spanning decades. The entity is an arm of the government (not a commercial organization). It survives from a 5% tax it surcharges to all residents. XavierItzm (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quantity is not the same as quality.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This local station produced an Emmy-winning show that was written up in the Boston Globe. Why are we even discussing deleting it? The sources in the article already show a clear pass of GNG. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a Regional Emmy, its not that notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Boston CSA has more than 8 million people. Regional in Boston is more than national in most countries. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boston is a notable city so everything associated with Boston must also be notable, see WP:NOTINHERITED Also, nothing actually indicates that this channel is available in the city of Boston. The channel is available in a town of 85,000 people, not 8 million.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Way to completely misconstrue my argument just so you can cite some policy which you evidently haven't read. The point about the Globe is that, due to the population of the Boston CSA, its regional coverage implicates more people than the national coverage in most nations in the world. Thus a story in the Boston Globe is very weighty evidence when it comes to gauging notability. Get it now? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article seems to show significant notability, and has some credible sourcing. Article certainly needs some cleanup, but should be tagged, not deleted. I'd also question the nominators comments about WP:COI. The user has not claimed COI, (apart from a username block), so we shouldn't infer in a conversation, and even if it was a COI account that made the page, it isn't a deletion policy. Articles created by COI members are strongly discouraged, but not against WP ToS. In these cases, if the member has a COI, he really should declare it, but it has gone through AfC, which is how we should send all COI cases. The Boston Globe articles should really be enough for GNG Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If I recall correctly, I was not the original author of the article, I have only updated and edited the article. Yes, I do work at the television station, but as previously mentioned, this has gone through AfC and is not a deletion policy. You can see in Public-access_television that other public access stations, some with less notoriety and sources, have Wikipedia pages. I have not been the only one to edit the page and would not have done much editing if it weren't for the threats of deletion. The Boston Globe is far more than a simple "local source." It has the largest newsroom in the region^[1] and has been on the forefront of national stories such as the Pentagon Papers^[2] and abuse inside the Catholic church.^[3]. It seems most people understand that The Boston Globe is significant, the Boston/New England Emmys are significant, and NewTV is significant, aside from one user with some sort of vendetta. Hopefully this information is helpful. Without threats of deletion, I will not edit the page. JLatNewtonTV (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to tell you, but you're recollection is wrong, according to the article history, you did create the article. Also, we are not debating the notability of the Boston Globe. Just because the Globe is a notable newspaper does not mean every story it prints in its local section is also notable. If your tv station was that notable, it would have some type of coverage outside of the local Boston area.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting that the coverage is in the "local section" shows that you have not read the cited articles. (come are in local, some are in the general edition.) Also, page creators are permitted to participate and iVote.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another strawman's argument, no one said he or she couldn't vote. I was just pointing out that given this talk page, it's hard to believe that he or she forgot they wrote the article.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep qualified under gng DocumentError (talk) 20:33, 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 keep per improvements, but hold a merge discussion. This article and Water supply and women in developing countries are, while not exactly the same, fairly close duplicates, and the possibility of a merge one way or another (or not at all) is one that should definitely be considered - but not in this venue. ansh 666 04:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Water access and gender

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

Wikipedia is not a repository for essays. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 23:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 23:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 23:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I was going to put PROD on it but the AfD got in first. As the nomination says, this is an essay not an encyclopaedia article. There are many places that the author can seek to publish this but Wikipedia is not one of them. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements have been made so this is no longer a delete for me. I now favour a merge. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This appears to be a statement of the author's opinion, which is a essay containing original research, and cannot be readily made encyclopedic. (If an editor actually produces the encyclopedic essay within the required seven days, they should be entitled to a barnstar.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTESSAY. Acnetj (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inappropriate in its current form. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even meaningful essay. Next to nonsense rambling. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would remind all of the above who are !voting "Delete" that we are discussing whether a topic is notable or not--not whether the article is well written. The topic is notable and written about in several RS and over a number of years: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], As for fixing a VERY new editor's work from an essay to an article, this is not hard! All you have to do is a little copyediting, which I have. If we show new editors how Wiki articles should be written, we are doing a better service to our newbies. I am adding sources to the article so please take a look at the article's new state. Thank you. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks closer to being a complete rewrite than "a little copyediting". It is definitely an improvement but I'm not sure if it has truly stepped over the line that makes it an article not an essay. I'm not ready to switch my !vote to keep but I'd have no objection to it being made into a draft and brought back once it is ready. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielRigal: You're right: I eventually overhauled it completely! ;) What would you suggest to make it more "article-like?" Please ping me, or I may not see your reply. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is well sourced and though not an issue in the industrialised world, it is still very much an issue around the globe. Access to water is much more of a gender issue in the developing world and even though this article may need work, it should remain. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements done by Megalibrarygirl. The subject has significant coverage in RS.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this subject is notable, meets WP:GNG with well referenced article. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is notable, and a proper article. Props to MLG for takign on the DIY task. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — with Water supply and women in developing countries. ~~to Water Access in Underdeveloped Country Patriarchies~~. The article's material is clearly about "Water supply and women in developing countries". Not a single sentence in the whole essay makes reference to, or is at all related to any Western nations, so "Water access and gender" is quite an inappropriate page title. Per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article"XavierItzm (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Per Megalibrarygirl, who actually understands what AfD is for. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the incredible work done by Megalibrarygirl. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Water supply and women in developing countries should be merged here, as "Water access and gender" is a more appropriate title. "Developing countries" is an ill-defined and patronising term, but more fundamentally the article scope should be the whole world and every gender. There's no reason to narrow down a article title beyond that which differentiates it from other articles. If sources exist or emerge about "developed" countries and/or men or trans people then we should be able to add them here. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 17:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge? - I suggest that it should be merged with the existing article on Water supply and women in developing countries. I see a lot of overlap there. EMsmile (talk) 05:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That makes sense. Unless there is anything much to say about developed countries I think this falls into the exactly same remit. It is unfortunate that we didn't realise this sooner but I hope that some of the work done on this article can be reused there. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv and DanielRigal: there might be some information about gender in 1st world countries. The original article mentioned how water distribution was a "masculine endeavor" starting in the 19th century... and I've heard about that sort of thing in the past. It's when water collection becomes "engineering," men seem to take over. So there may be a way to write about that. I can maybe see what I can dig up, but you might want to think about that when deciding about the article. Also, it seems like "Less developed countries" is the correct usage rather than "developing countries." That's what I ran into most often. (But I'm not an expert!) :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EMsmile: I should have pinged you, too. Sorry. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Water supply and women in developing countries. But, also, thank you to User:Megalibrarygirl for the excellent work put into basically rewriting this from scratch. I'm tempted to say keep, mostly to recognize her work, but the merge really does make sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 22 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. ansh 666 04:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asuka Hoshino

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another point of evidence in our insane over coveage of people involved in pornography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 19 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental Ruthless Boy

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

Can't seem to find any sort of source that would verify WP:GNG, and article has no sources anyways. Wasn't sure if the little news coverage it has would count as WP:A7, so tossing it here. <RetroCraft314 talk/> 23:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No subject is notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. A few passing mentions here and there, but nothing with any level of detail other than they exist. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and per SummerPhDv2.0, and per WP:Articles for deletion/Oriental Ruthless Boys. Still fails WP:ORG, WP:PERP and WP:GNG. All I can find in WP:RS is passing mentions in news articles about crime. At present, 88% of the article is a verbatim paste from a 2001 court document, and the rest is unsourced claims of criminal activities. The outcome of the last AFD was to redirect to Hmong gangs, but even that was later deleted by prod. Also note that salted Oriental Ruthless Boys was speedied three times in 2008 as an attack article. I'll also suggest that the closing admin move this AFD to WP:Articles for deletion/Oriental Ruthless Boys (2nd nomination). The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly written nonsensical article about a non-notable gang 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 16:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is some news coverage (not much). Some court cases. And list-style mentions in approx. 5 books. Does not meet GNG. Does pass V - could be on List of gangs in the United States or Hmong street gangs (the context in which this is discussed - as one of a few rival gangs) - if this met inclusion criteria or the article existed.Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom DocumentError (talk) 15:26, 20 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. ansh 666 04:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Riko Tachibana

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. The category "Most appearances" is not significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:12, 16 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 keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brazilian singers and bands of Christian music

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

Not a notable list. This is suitable for a category but not a list. The notable entries could be merged into list of Christian worship music artists or the established lists at List of Christian bands and artists by genre. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete -- It is a notable list. Because it is a list, it does not need to have so many references. However, the article is valid, efficient and very well done. Must be keeped. --187.56.56.180 (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It is a notable and important list

The list features notable singers and Brazilian Christian bands. I do not see anything wrong with the list, quite the opposite. The list is great and should be maintained because it shows the great and the main names of contemporary Christian music in Brazil. --DavidStarIsrael7 (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The article should be kept as relevant. It presents the most important names of Brazilian Christian music in an efficient way, following the standards and norms of Wikipedia. --MilenaSword1 (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- — MilenaSword1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Created user page then commented here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It should be maintained, because have important details about the Brazilian music and Christian music. --187.120.13.106 (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There are actually no details about Brazilian or Christian music. We have a group of individuals that can be addressed with a category. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nominator does not cite a policy for deletion. On the other hand, the applicable policy WP:LISTPEOPLE allows this list. Personally, I think we should have a list of Christian artists for each country. There is a problem however, there may be some overlap with List_of_Brazilian_Christian_singers so these 2 lists should be merged. – Lionel^(talk) 07:12, 20 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. Seems like no further participation is forthcoming. ansh 666 04:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Bin Said Bin Smaikh Break Al owair Al-Marri

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

Don't see how being the chairman of a national (not international) committee is a reason for notability. Might as well qualify for A7. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 16:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity that articles about people in the Arabic-speaking world always seem to be created with the title being the longest possible form of their name, rather than that which is most commonly used. That makes it next to impossible for others who are not familiar with Arabic names to find sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an unremarkable non-profit executive. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of sources that mention "Ali bin Samikh al-Marri" (sometimes spelled as "Smaikh") but will take some digging to determine whether they're really about him or the committee czar 19:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for CZAR to present and analyze more specific sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 20:23, 14 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium-class cruise ship (Carnival)

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

This appears to be made up, as do the related images uploaded by the article's creator, File:Carnival Millennium.jpg and File:---F--DCIM-100JVCSO-Carnival Millennium.JPG. I cannot find any reference to this class on the Carnival website or any online news media. – Fayenatic London 21:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. As far as I've been able to find out, Carnival has four ships on the way, but there's nothing about this so-called class. This current Orlando Sentinel article[11] (and this website of uncertain reliability agrees) states that Carnival has ordered two 180,000 ton ships, due to go into service in 2020 and 2022, which contradicts the claim that "The Millennium-class ships of Carnival will be the largest ships [133,500 GT] of the fleet by then." Plus they will be powered by liquified natural gas, not diesel-electric. (And I was so looking forward to taking a cruise on the Falcon.) Clarityfiend (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or dispatch to davy jone's locker G3 HoAx. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find anything to verify this - Galatz ^Talk 21:22, 15 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. ansh 666 04:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny Olsen

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

notability: doubt that references supplied are enough to establish notability RJFJR (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is devoid of RS, and so there is no evidence of notability. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The research tools produce one dedicated article in LA Weekly, which isn't nearly enough for notability. Tapered (talk) 05:00, 15 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. The parenthetical disambiguation makes it a less likely search title, but if still desired it can be recreated as a redirect. ansh 666 04:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarit2d (software)

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

Fails WP:NSOFTWARE, no sources referenced or easily found through Google searches. <RetroCraft314 talk/> 18:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are not many link to sarit2d because sarit2d is temporally publied on a second level address: sarit2d.altervista.org, so Google doesn't consider it. However the product is good, useful and freeware, so all can use it. The author of sarit2d will improve the google results. Sorry for my bad english. And thank for collaboration.User_talk:Cosimopatrucci

—Preceding undated comment added 19:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The discovery of the site where Sarit2D is published has nothing to do with finding reliable sources. The rules for including an article about a piece of software (WP:NSOFTWARE) and the general guidelines (WP:GNG) state that software must have coverage by significant, independent sources. Even the existence of reviews can qualify for WP:NSOFTWARE, but there are no independent sources at all that I can find. <RetroCraft314 talk/> 19:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks.User_talk:Cosimopatrucci

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My searches are finding nothing to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of interactive geometry software, where it's mentioned. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 22 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. ansh 666 04:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Paley

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

Does not seem to meet the notability guidelines for actors, with only minor roles listed on ImDB. Fails WP:GNG. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RetiredDuke (talk • contribs) 17:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject doesn't appear to have won any awards, refs here consist only of links to IMDb (not a WP:RELIABLE source). Nothing presented here suggests notability, Google search turns up Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and a series of directory-like listings. A loose noose (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:50, 15 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 Deleted. Speedy deleted; The article was a Copied and pasted from another website. (non-admin closure) 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 01:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TFC Juniors

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

Very detailed article on a youth team that fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. It will not play for the national cup. The league is clearly not professional (unless a year-end banquet as a reward is considered payment). The senior team is notable. The reserve team is notable, the academy is notable, but not the children's team. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale for the creation of the page was that it's directly linked and is apart of the TFC player Pathway. I thought an article would be warranted as it helps contribute to the knowledge of how the academy is populated... Maybe instead of the article, something can be added to the youth development sub-section for TFC. The only issue I have with that is that it a large amount of information that's specific to the program and process that would probably be lost if it was created as an add-on to that youth sub-section. Doucet3 (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the article is copied from the club website, so I have nominated the article for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 09:58, 15 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 redirect to Web hosting service. Any sourced content can be merged. ansh 666 04:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Free web hosting service

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

This page is often used by webhosting businesses to improve SEO and/or promote their business free of charge. Also, it's hard to find a source specifically for this article, since they are often unreliable or from vendors (see WP:SELFPUBLISH, and also WP:ORIGINAL). Instead of keeping this article, web hosting could mention it briefly. I noticed I did something wrong during the deletion process, sorry. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 17:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep/~~Merge - not sure I can discern any reason for deletion here. Sources such as Nate Cooper's Build your own website (No Starch Press, 2014, isbn 978-1593275228) discuss how to use Wordpress among other topics: there are plenty of published sources available. The existence of spam isn't a reason for deletion, either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap my point is, as it stands, the information in the article could be either deleted or merged to Web hosting service. Web hosting providers can provide free and paid services, there no need for a separate article. Guild hosting service is another article that is too specific and niche, for example, but if you think about it, does it makes any sense? There could exists pages specific to law agencies, to hospitals, etc. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 13:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Web hosting service, as an editorial opinion. The article is currently unreferenced, but I am certain refs exist for much of the content. Comparison of free web hosting services is also worth considering here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could agree for a merge to Web hosting service, and would then proceed to do the same with other pages related to web hosting services. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 13:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is fine, if there are WP:FORKing articles then of course it's in order, but AfD is not needed for that process. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep that in mind! Sorry for anything! :) User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 23:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With zero sources, this is all WP:OR. I have no objection to talking about this subject in Web hosting service, but with no sourcing, a merge per-se, makes no sense. Moving OR somewhere else doesn't magically make it valid encyclopedia content. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:15, 22 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Penn (actor)

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

Subject does not seem to meet WP:NACTOR. ImDB only has a list of fairly minor appearences and I could not locate anything to satisfy WP:GNG. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searched for his works but couldn't find how he satisfies the criteria of notability. Fails WP:NACTOR as per RetiredDuke. Blazing Sceptile (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no claim of notability in the article and the one ref is to imdb, i searched google, news and newspapers, nothing i can see. Szzuk (talk) 18:29, 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 keep. ansh 666 04:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zhejiang University City College

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

not meet with WP:NGEO Tazkeung (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools states: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." - As long as this place issues degrees it should be notable and kept. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - http://english.zucc.edu.cn/art/2012/5/30/art_1342_51861.html says "Being an independent college of Zhejiang University, it offers a breadth of full-time undergraduate programs." and "ZUCC now has 35 undergraduate degree programs in 9 subordinate schools" and "Full-time candidates for master’s degrees and international students have also been recruited since 2003." - Sounds like it's degree-granting to me WhisperToMe (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an independent tertiary educational institution is certainly notable. -Zanhe (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In 11 years here, I do not think we have deleted a single one, except in the cases where it could not be shown the institution was distinct from a parent institution, or had not actually started. That doesn't seem to be the case here. There are always sources, if one is able to look carefully enough. (and this is the reverse side of our practice in not making separate articles for primary and intermediate schools unless there is something special). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 00:12, 22 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. ansh 666 04:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark R. Johnsen

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

Subject does not seem to meet WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE. I could not find the necessary references to establish notability and the single source in the article only name-checks him. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 16:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 16:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a not notable individual, the refs in the article don't support notability and I've googled but drawn a blank, i searched his name with 'veteran' and then with 'brewer' because there are a few people with a similar name. Szzuk (talk) 20:04, 20 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. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Moller Gilbreth

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

Although both the subject's parents were notable, a search of Google news articles or books found no WP:RELIABLE beyond the obituary material cited. HopsonRoad (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - served multiple terms in his state legislature. Even one term makes him notable, by long-standing consensus at WP:POLITICIAN. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Serving in state legislature makes him notable. Acnetj (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It looks like the article needs a little bit of cleanup, but I definitely believe he is notable enough for his own article. -- Dolotta (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Orange Mike, easily meets WP:POLITICIAN. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Served in the New Hampshire House of Representatives. Passes WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article does need improvement, but serving in the state legislature is a straight pass of WP:NPOL #1. And because his term in the legislature was from 1985 to 1994, Google News is not where one would expect to find any evidence of reliable source coverage about him: Google is only reliable for finding recent news coverage within the past few years, not coverage that's 20 years old or more — for the latter, you need to search archival news databases like ProQuest or Newspapers.com or library microfilms, or wherever else one might find old Nashua Telegraph or New Hampshire Union Leader coverage. We do not have a requirement that our sources be web-published, so the inability to find Googlable coverage of a person whose notability claim predates the existence of Google is not in and of itself a reason for deletion. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 15 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. ansh 666 04:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander De Block

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

Subject does not seem to meet WP:NMODEL. The sources in the article are all primary and I could not locate any reliable, secondary sources for it to meet WP:GNG. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 15:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All links to sources have rotted. Even if they haven't, they would not meet the significant coverage and secondary sources criteria per WP:GNG. Damselfly7 (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no where close to meeting our notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 19 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. ansh 666 04:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut (video gamer)

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

Non-notable video gamer, Apparently best known for involved in non-notable (and so redlinked) competitions. With no references, does not satisfy general notability or any other notability guideline.

Could be tagged for BLPPROD, but that could probably be addressed, so let's go with AFD.

Google search does not turn up this person, but many video games based on Peanuts, the comic. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - no indication of notability, unsourced BLP. -Zanhe (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those are reasons for speedy deletion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nearly-unsourced, non-notable BLP. The article itself is also a mess, but that could be fixed if the subject was notable, which isn't the case. ~~I'd suggest a BLPPROD, I really can't imagine any objections to this.~~ Nanophosis (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- BLPPROD is for cases when exactly ZERO sources are cited, which is not the case here. So there would indeed be an objection. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood, thank you. I still suggest deletion, but have revoked my support for a BLPPROD. Nanophosis (talk) 15:31, 19 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 as expired WP:PROD. Note the existence of Draft:Jolovan Wham, which was created before the article by the same author. ansh 666 04:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jolovan Wham

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

Reasons: 1. Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion - Unambiguous advertising or promotion, needs a fundamental rewrite 2. Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject) - Similar as above, article written to advocate causes by sole contributor 3. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline - Insufficient reliable and notable sources to support article, other than basic information like biodata 4. Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons - Contravenes this, as article is written in a tone which supports advocacy by the subject Terrancommander (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:07, 14 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 redirect to The Salvation Army#Soldier's Covenant. ansh 666 04:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soldier's Covenant

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

There's no indication that the Salvation Army's articles of faith are notable. Coverage in independent sources is scarce and mostly amounts to "They exist, are called 'Soldier's Covenant' and sum up the Salvation Army's doctrines". That's the best I could find via Google Books, Google Scholar is even less helpful. The article cites no independent sources whatsoever. Huon (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Article needs a lot of work, but I am seeing some discussion in academic sources. Note that this document was known as the "Articles of War" until 2010, and so nearly all scholarship will refer to that name. I'll try to provide a cleanup and sourcing pass, but probably can't get to it till early in the week. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Salvation Army#Soldier's Covenant per Tim Templeton. There ARE more sources than are currently in use there, and there really is a little bit more that we could say on the topic. But the emphasis is on little, and I see no reason to make a terrible stub here when we can just present the information in context. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - would you mind sharing what those sources are (and how you found them)? I found nothing of that sort. An appendix giving the Soldier's Covenant is hardly discussion. Huon (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the first thing that looks promising is: Lydholm, Gudrun (2006). "Rites of Commissioning/Ordination in the Salvation Army in the Nordic Countries related to the Theological Development in the Salvation Army internationally". In Iversen, Hans Raun (ed.). Rites of Ordination and Commitment in the Churches of the Nordic Countries. Museum Tusculanum Press. pp. 391–416. ISBN 87-635-0265-8. There's sometimes an art to this sort of thing, but if I can't get a handful of viable sources by mid-week, I'll retract my !vote in favor of a merger. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into existing article soldier(of the Salvation Army) I've already quoted from the 2018 Salvation Army year book why the Soldiers Covenant is notable, but let me repeat for those unfamiliar with my previous definition:
- Soldiers Covenant: The statement of beliefs and promises which every intending soldier is required to sign before enrolment. :Previously called Articles of War source: page 20, Salvation Army year book 2018 ISBN978-1-911149-40-8(paperback) and 978-1-911149-41-5(e-book)

Proposal for deletion without incorporating the text into soldier(of the Salvation Army) is considered a mendacious attempt to eviscerate from wikipedia anything that doesn't contain some criticism of the Salvation Army Adrian816 (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment withdrawn

Adrian816 (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By "articles of faith" I mean the Soldier's Covenant, roughly in line with one of the few secondary sources I could find that so much as mention it: "Is there a statement of faith (SOF)? There's a statement of faith, but it's not called that. Keeping things military, the Salvation Army calls it the Soldier's Covenant (or the Articles of War)". I accidentally mixed up "Articles of War" and "statement of faith". I'd like to see an explanation how that could be taken as a personal attack (against what person?), even if I had referred to the Handbook of Doctrine instead of the Soldier's Covenant. Since that's not relevant to whether or not the article should be kept, merged or deleted (and there currently is no content based on secondary sources, so nothing worthy of being merged), we should move that part of the discussion elsewhere. Huon (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pulling the Devil's Kingdom Down: The Salvation Army in Victorian Britain is another source; [12] isn't independent but is substantial. I'm neutral on a merge with Soldier (The Salvation Army). power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge as described above, as has coverage in rs books Atlantic306 (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment withdrawn Adrian816 (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Salvation Army. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the info already available on the Salvation Army's website? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need references to significant coverage in fully independent reliable sources to establish the notability of a topic. In this case, no source affiliated with the Salvation Army is acceptable for determining the notability of this topic. I believe that the advice in the essay Wikipedia:Avoid mission statements is excellent and applicable to this case. In addition, about half of the content of this article is copied directly from a copyrighted website. Accordingly, this should be deleted per WP:COPYVIO. This covenant or "articles of war" can be covered with originally written and properly referenced content in the main article. Adrian816, your aggressive and combative remarks are completely out of line. I recommend that you withdraw them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lede is now reliably & independently sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not just this, but also need review of the user Adrian816's continued additions of info to other Salvation Army topics using Salvation Army as the source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ this is the creed of a significant denomination. Note that we have a List of Christian creeds. I have rewritten and sourced the lede it to reliable newspapers articles, but a deeper and more nuanced article can certainly be written using sources including Like a Mighty Army?: The Salvation Army, the Church, and the Churches, By David W. Taylor. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Salvation Army#Soldier's Covenant. I already merged the lede info there. Since the content section is unsourced, there's no indication that the actual verbiage is necessary. Put another way, would we put the text of the bible in the bible article? Too much intricate detail. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Salvation Army#Soldier's Covenant. Good solution by Tim Templeton.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:47, 16 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 as expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 04:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mach-Hommy

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

I can't find any reliable, secondary sources in relation to the subject. Plus, the article doesn't cite any sources and is uncategorised.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 04:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 14:36, 14 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. ansh 666 04:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moamba (Vidas vendidas)

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

Non-notable. Declined PROD. wumbolo ^^^ 14:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no refs in the article and nothing i can see on google, there is a Spanish language article with one ref to a film dictionary but otherwise a similar low quality article. Szzuk (talk) 20:13, 20 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 Delete. WP:G12 by KnightLago. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Ring of Wax

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

I'm nominating this lump of breathless tosh for deletion because I don't think there is aan appropriate speedy cat. No refs, nothing to suggest this nonsense passes WP:GNG. TheLongTone (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see its been speedied, CSA1. I thought of that but thought it didn't qualify as very short. Off with it's head!TheLongTone (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support since I put in the speedy nom. I felt like it met criteria A1 because there's really no context to it. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speed delete this and the other two articles by the same editor, as per A1 and G12. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:57, 14 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slice the Cake

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

I'm convinced this article doesn't pass WP:NM. I've known about this band for almost a decade now, but still... as long as I've been a fan of them, I havent seen them covered by a single credible source besides MetalSucks. This might have to get thrown out Second Skin (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, other than the 3 primary sources, there is only one secondary source which covers the subject. Actually, most of what a quick google search reveals is coverage about their "Odyssey to the West" album, and the quality of the sources is similar to what is already in the article. So fails both WP:1E and WP:SIGCOV. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The search tools turn up nothing to confer notability. Needs to go. Tapered (talk) 05:39, 15 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. ansh 666 04:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sehar Jhansi

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

Unable to verify the existence of such a place in this location : Noyster (talk), 11:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. : Noyster (talk), 11:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 12:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete google maps can't find it, there are no refs in the article and it is basically devoid of information. Szzuk (talk) 18:20, 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. 34 people with this surname, one of whom is notable. Consensus is that this is not a notable topic. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tjoflot (surname)

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

Not a notable or standout name among millions. Geschichte (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are there specific guidelines regarding the notability of names? Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see how it would differ from the notability of, say, settlements or species, of which there are also millions. Doremo (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This would be a disambiguation page, however there is only one person with that surname on wp - Nils Tjoflot. Szzuk (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a second Tjoflot to the list at the page to address this issue. Doremo (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the closest guidance I could find is the WikiProject essay WP:NNAME - as there's only one person of this surname with an article, it recommends deletion. ansh 666 05:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ansh666 and Doremo 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what you mean by "per ... Doremo"? I have not supported deletion. Doremo (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doremo: Sorry, confusion with editor above you (Szzuk). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:03, 24 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnstown Jackals

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

Not listed as a team at National Indoor Football League. A similar team the Johnstown J Dogs links back to the leagues page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They played in the Indoor Football League, not the NIFL. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep likely will remain a stub, but that's okay.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep although based on the article's quality, I wouldn't oppose a merge to Indoor Football League (1999–2000). power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the information is around, just needs to be hunted down. Added a little bit with a citation. Kees08 (Talk) 02:53, 20 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. ansh 666 04:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elovay

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

Fails to meet the Notability criteria at WP:MUSIC; perhaps it is too early in their career. A Google News search fails to find even a single mention of the band, and nothing in their brief history meets the criteria at this stage. Gronk Oz (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It might be WP:TOOSOON for this band. They have a reliable mention at mtv.com [13] but that is little more than an announcement that their video exists. Brief mentions at indie publications Purple Melon [14] and Idobi [15] which may well be reliable but they are still little more than brief introductions that are not too far from press releases. They will need more independent coverage to qualify for a WP article someday. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:08, 19 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 redirect to Family tree of Ali. ansh 666 05:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib

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

This reads very much like the user has created these facts. With some very iffy cites (Al-Majdi for example is a person, not a book). Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioned matters have been tried to be retrieved/taken from sources ... Anyway, I edited the article to some extent to improve/modify it. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Family tree of Ali (I would say to Descendants of Ali ibn Abi Talib but that already redirects to the family tree) - This should possibly be grouped with Jafar ibn Ali, which I think should also be so redirected. Both are sons of Umm ul-Banin and full brothers of Abbas ibn Ali and are most (only) notable for dying at the Battle of Karbala. Given the significance of their father, I'm tempted to !vote keep in-spite of NOTINHERITED. However, there really isn't much more known about these individuals. I do want to point out that some of the references are borderline ok, except that many are so old as to constitute primary sources. For instance, I wouldn't use Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani as a source if I could find alternatives. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your view/suggestion, I obviated Abu al-Faraj..., and added another related reference to the article. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great, although al-Faraj is still there. For the references/citations in the article, could you include a bit more information (see Wikipedia:Citing sources) - the name of the publisher and the date of the edition. Also, if your source is an arabic script based one (for instance, Persian), could you include the name of the title in Arabic as well, so that there is no confusion (in my opinion, if the source is in Arabic or Persian, the entire reference should be in Arabic or Persian, with transliterations/translations of the author and title). That way someone else can check your sources to confirm the information. I think the best case for keeping the article would be made if a little bit more detail were given. Right now, the article gives various forms of his name, it gives information about his parents and brother, and it says he died at Karbala. All of that is fairly basic information about him, and while it could be enough for an encyclopedia article, it isn't much to go on. But there are hints of more. For instance, he is mention in Ziyarat al-Nahiya al-Mogaddasa. The article could tell the reader that that is a prayer based on the battle of Karbala. It could also tell the reader what the prayer says about this subject (looking at http://www.duas.org/ziaratnahiya.htm, I couldn't figure out where he is mentioned, although maybe he is mentioned in a different or longer version). Also, the article currently says, "although there are other views about that, too." If there are differing accounts of his life and death, it would be nice to know what they are and where they come from (or at least the names of the some of the major historians/scholars/religious writers took note of the subject). If one account is accepted by a significant community (for instance, if predominately Shia believe X), then say that one account is more widely believed. As much as possible, cite 20th and 21st century sources. If you have to use the original histories, try to find recent publications of them, preferably with commentaries, so that the reader might be able to look them up in a source which gives context. Of your online sources, ISNA and maybe Ashoora are your best ones. You can use them to flesh out some of the details a bit more. Also, clarify the reference. For instance, the ISNA article was published 22 Azar 1391, which is, I think, 12 Dec 2012. Is the ashoora link a web version of Encyclopedia of Ashura (Muhaditthy, Jawad, The Encyclopaedia of Ashura, Qum, Maruf publications, Thirteenth edition, 2010.)? If so, then that is a great source. Provide the full citation (probably what I just gave) as well as the link (we call this, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). As it is, it looks like a webpage, which might not be a reliable source. The third link doesn't, I think, mention this subject and is provided to give context about the Ziyarat (which is fine, I'm just mentioning that for others reading).

As an aside about the suitability of the article for the encyclopedia, if the ashoora link is from the Encyclopedia of Ashura, this does not mean that the subject automatically passes WP:ANYBIO, but it might. If anyone knows anything more about the encyclopedia and can speak to it, that would be welcome. Vanity press published English translations are available on Amazon and on archive.org, but those don't seem to have the same contents as ashoora.ir, and the Persian version of the book may or may not be reputably published, I do not know. On the other hand, the ISNA source notes that he is listed as a martyr in various histories, including writings by Ibn Sa'd, Al-Tabari, Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani, Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi, and Nasir al-Din al-Tusi. I'm not striking my !vote just yet, as I think the article should be improved if kept. But given a modern source exist which points to a murderers row of 8th and 9th century scholars who venerated the subject, I suspect he would be a fit subject for an article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tried to look at this a couple times without reaching much of a conclusion other than I am finding it difficult to sort out who is being written about in some cases. As a for instance, the article currently states that he was known historically as both Abdullah the Younger ("al-Asghar") and Abdullah the Elder ("al-Akbar") which is perplexing to me, particularly given that there is a more famous young Abdullah who died at Karbala, Ali al-Asghar ibn Husayn. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In order not to cause confusion (based on what @user 24.151.116.12 mentioned, about Asghar/Akbar), I removed "Ali Al-asghar" (which apparently seems to be less famous than Ali-Akbar). And at the moment the text is like that: "... in historical books as Abdullah al-Akbar (in Arabic: عبدالله الاکبر) with the Kunya (title) of Abu Mohammad"Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand, does the source make this claim, if so it should not have been removed, if it does not that means it is OR. Which is it?Slatersteven (talk) 08:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: You mentioned an important point; but, I edited/added sources, and the presented text (al-Akbar..., not Al-Asghar) is based on the presented sources which are available in the article --namely, both article/references just mention Al-Akbar (not al-Asghar), and it seems to be more true/probable based on my new research, too.Ali Ahwazi (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any possibility that there has been some confusion with Ali al-Akbar ibn Husayn who is described as having been "killed at the age of 18, 19, or 25 at the battle of Karbalā on the day of ʿĀšūrā (10 Moḥarram 61/10 October 680)"? 24.151.116.12 (talk) 15:45, 17 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 keep. One could even perhaps argue that it is more notable for its lack of usefulness. ansh 666 05:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Verge (cryptocurrency)

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

This cryptocurrency has suffered a serious attack in the last few days, limiting its usefulness and therefore notability. Normanland (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Usefulness≠notability. Notability is permanent. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertisement, see e.g. the "infographic" - violates WP:NOT Only 3 refs - 2 are to own website. The other - the Sun - is less factual than breathless. Never was notable as far as I can tell. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have made a number of alterations, with a heavy focus on references - quality is decent (not great, I am aware - @Smallbones: - let me know), but certainly better than self-referencing or Sun. The attack actually adds notability, because it has received such significant coverage, and I've added it in appropriately. Reference/WP:GNG seemed the primary reason this should be deleted, and I feel it no longer fails on those grounds. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the theft of a large amount of this otherwise non-notable certainly has made its claim to notability a bit less ridiculous, but still hasn't raised its visibility to where outsiders are noticing it. The key guideline here is WP:NCORP re: the trade journals used to reference the theft:

"Trade publications must be used with great care. While feature stories[3] from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability as businesses frequently make use of these publications to increase their visibility.[4]"

I'll just say the independence is not clear. BTW, I'll remove the advertising infographic from the article - I've just never seen anything on Wikipedia that reached that level of obnoxiousness in advertising. For those who want to see this abomination see here. I'm not sure why, but reading about this whole thing keeps on reminding me of the old saying "Every fool aspired to be a knave." . Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to concede that some of the independence was not fully satisfied with the trade ones - I endeavored to only use them on points that were less promotional. There is an increasing awareness of non-bitcoin cryptos amongst the general population. Running off the first paragraph under significant coverage WP:CORPDEPTH I would say the article has met those requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 19:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

30th largest cryptocurrency - does not make it notable by any stretch. *All* of the sources are trade magazines (except Bloomberg which gives it just 1 paragraph). I don't think any of these have established themselves as being reliable sources - they just look like a platform to advertise cryptocurrencies. BTW, the trade journal quote above comes from the section linked at WP:CORPDEPTH. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not time-specific, and therefore this cryptocurrency remains notable. In addition, the attack has added in notability. SuperChris (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called currency was never notable. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs major improvement but the subject is notable. It has a market capitalization of around 1 billion USD and due to it's partnership with MindGeek/Pornhub has been all over the news (Fortune, Forbes, etc.). The fact that Verge has suffered a serious attack recently is true but doesn't affect its notability. If Bank of America gets robbed, do we consider deleting their Wikipedia article as a consequence? SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 14:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on GNG principles, since we don't seem to have any CC-specific notability guidelines at the moment(?) - sufficient coverage seems to be there, based on the URL dump just made on the page (which BTW is an abomination in the article, and I have moved it onto the article page). Nominator rationale is a non-starter; we are not advocating this thing, merely presenting information about it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:07, 22 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. See WP:NOTINHERITED. ansh 666 05:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Static Shock Records

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

Not a notable record label. Does not pass WP:GNG & WP:NCORP. There is a lack of significant coverage. KingAndGod 08:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The label has had its releases reviewed by Noisey and Pitchfork (both big deal music press types), as well as an interview with the label owner on Maximumrocknroll (a classic printed magazine of the genre). Three of the bands released by the label have their own pages. I can add more citations as I find them. Lewishhh (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lewishhh: It doesn't matter because their artists' successes don't contribute to the notability of the label. KingAndGod 10:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@KingAndGod: How does a record label become notable other than by releasing notable bands? Lewishhh (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lewishhh: I meant to say that, on Wikipedia, a label is not notable simply because it has notable artists since the guidelines here require significant coverage in order for a company to establish notability. KingAndGod 10:06, 17 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 keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Power of Darkness (1909 film)

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

There don't seem to be much coverage about this 1909 short film. Most of the sources found regarding "The Power of Darkness" are about an 1886 play by Leo Tolstoy - The Power of Darkness. KingAndGod 08:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ this 1909 lost film is unlikely to have much internet coverage and old Russian newspapers may well be paywalled but it does have a notable director and confirmation of its existence and the article is not a priority for deletion as it is not promoting anything. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: "Sources could exist" is not a valid reason to keep an article. Anyone can say that in any AfD to vote for keep. The 1886 play is very remarkable that it's probably the one referred to in "old Russian newspapers". KingAndGod 15:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Perhaps it could be merged into The Power of Darkness as that article is not very long and theres not a lot to merge Atlantic306 (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First Russian adaptation of Tolstoy. Historically significant director and producer. I have sources, and I'll try to get this article fleshed out, likely Monday or Tuesday. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a lot better than it was. Access to sources is a major challenge here. There exists a published synopsis (describing which scenes from the play are adapted in the film) as well as a contemporary review, both published in Сине-фоно [Cine-Phono] 3 (1909), but I don't have even the first clue how to access a copy, so I'm depending exclusively on Piispa's excerpts from that source. Nevertheless, that source unquestionably exists, so the addition of a plot section and expansion of the reception are certainly possible. Regardless, in addition to being the first Russian-produced film adaptation of Tolstoy, this was also evidently the directorial debut of Pyotr Chardynin. I'm fairly sure that drags this over the finish line for WP:NFILM under a couple of different criteria, but I'll continue to see what I can dig up (including trying to figure out if there's any chance I can get my hands on that issue of Сине-фоно. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep moving to full keep as the article has been expanded using extra reliable sources so it passes WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFILM, historical movie with historical importance. Covered in reliable academic sources like Encyclopedia of Russian Cinema as well as journal, these sources are more credible than blog and WordPress pages that must new movies of this age rely on. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:58, 17 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 no consensus. Good luck finding a consensus here. What this discussion has done is shine some light on the subject so that hopefully so extra haands can sort out the scope content. If problems persist a relist down the road is not prohibited. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aleviler

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

Contested PROD; reason for nomination was: Article likely falls within WP:DEL-REASON (4, 6, 7, 8). Expounded details of concern at Administrator noticeboard (linked) as well. (ANI diff, PROD nominator was DA1) Swarm ♠ 12:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request the anonymous author(s) of the article to please provide some reliable sources mentioning the contents of the article: namely, that there is a categorization or "list" known as Aleviler composed of these various sects. I hope it isn't WP:FRINGE or WP:OR. I would also like to know why its filled with citations that have nothing to do with the context of the article. For example, one of the citations (Economist) leads to a comment section of an article, not even the article itself. Manually clicking on the article, gives me no mention of Aleviler. DA1 (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the other accessible sources (CNN Blog) and (NYT) do not show me any indication of Aleviler or its concepts, nor does the two other links I could access. They all mention Alevism, but not Aleviler or this classification or umbrella (with all of the other sects and religions) as presented in the Wikipedia article. Seems to me they (citations) are completely unrelated and there for show. DA1 (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alevism represents Kızılbaş faith which is considered as a Muslim sect. But, there are alor of different groups they call themselves as ALEVI but some of them claims that they are not Muslim at all. ALEVİLER (translated as ALEVİs) includes all groups, muslim or non-muslim, christian or any other thing. This word ALEVİLER is used in Turkish for all Muslim sects other than Sunnis. Is this explanation clear enough? Three Muslim sects: Alevi+Alawites+Shi'ites+Two non-muslim sects: Ishikism+Yarsanism. In the classical textbooks, Kaysanites, Qarmatians, Fatimid Ismailis, Nizaris and Pamiris are called as ALEVİ(LER) (Alevi(s).).^[4]

Conclusion:

Alevis and Alawites are two distinct Muslim sects but both of them are called as Aleviler.
Ahl-E Haqq and Chinarism are two distinct Non-Muslim sects but both of them calls/defines themselves as Aleviler even though they are not Alevi.
Moreover, you call Nosairis as Alawites which is being pronounced as Alevis although Nusayris are not Alevis and in this way creating further confusion between the Nosairi and Alevi since both of them pronounced Oalavee
Ishikists, on the other hand, who declared themselves as non-Muslims, asserting that the word Alevi was generated from the Flame not from Alevi, hence contributed further confusion to the content of Aleviler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.250.33 (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So do you have sources for this, or is it just WP:OR or WP:FRINGE as it first seemed? Because it still looks that way. You noted one source, that's a start but not enough to be notable enough to warrant an article on its own (and I don't know what it says in it, other than mentioning the word "Alevi", which we have an article for on WP). And you still haven't explained why the article is filled with 'citations' that have absolutely nothing to do with the context of the article (i.e, the Aleviler classification or umbrella). DA1 (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The world "Alevi" is a variation of "Alawi", I already know what it means, its an adjective pertaining to Ali, i.e., a follower or descendant of Ali. Calling oneself "Alevi" is fine, there's arguably 2 billion people who that label applies to in some form or another. Hence, why I want context. Who came up with this "Aleviler" concept, and where does it say XYZ sects are part it (and say, not ABC sects)? You can't just have an article with a random list...with unconnected citations that don't even backup said list. DA1 (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many groups call themselves as ALEVİ but they don't share Alevi faith. All these people are called ALEVİLER: Alevis and Alawites are two distinct Muslim sects, Ahl-E Haqq and Chinarism are two distinct Non-Muslim sects, furthermore all the Shi'ites including Kaysanites, Qarmatians, Fatimid Ismailis, Nizaris and Pamiris are called as ALEVİLER in Turkish as well. The term Shia has no meaning in public use. The topic Alevi here refers to Kızılbaş faith. Even though Nosairis, Yarsanis and Ishik Alevis uses this term, they don't share Alevi faith.

108.31.250.33 (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think this is basically a big disambiguation page, talking about different and not very related meanings of the word that simply happen to have the same name... —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 16:34, 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.

References

^ "Boston Globe". The Boston Globe.
^ Greene, Roy. "How the Globe became the third US Newspaper to Publish the Pentagon Papers". The Boston Globe.
^ "Church allowed abuse by priests for years".
^ Balcıoğlu, Tahir Harimî [in Turkish] (1940). Hilmi Ziya Ülken [in Turkish] (ed.). Türk tarihinde mezhep cereyanları (in Turkish). İstanbul: Kanaat Yayınları, Ahmed Sait tab'ı.For example this book uses the term ALEVİLER for various groups who are not Alevi, in short Aleviness is the Kızılbaş faith)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep and revise: I'm not a subject matter expert, but since it's pretty quiet here I'll put this as a !vote: From what I can see, this is a disambiguation page that lists various meanings of Aleviler, linking to their respective articles, that is just written verbosely like an article. So, it would be most usefully kept and reformatted/edited/trimmed to the way a disambiguation page is normally written. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 13:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please comment on whether this should be rewritten as a dab page as suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (first choice), Redirect (second choice), or Merge (third choice): Not independently notable. This article title does not warrant stand-alone status on Wikipedia. Per User:DA1 we can't have an unsourced "random list..." that would be just an indiscriminant collection of information by attempting to make an article out of an idiom. Otr500 (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. indiscriminate doesnot seem to apply -- there seems to be a range of meanings, some of which may be rather broad just distinct meanings, and the article is the place to explain it. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Recap; "there seems to be a range of meanings, some of which may be rather broad just distinct meanings" would be the defintion of indiscriminant collection of Wikipedia articles not supported by sources. We use "sourcing" to prevent original research and synthesis so where is the multiple reliable sources? Google this "idiom", even Google books, or try Google news, and someone let me know where there is acceptable reliable sources to even place this idiom in the "Alevi history" article. The charts splattered all over Wikipedia related articles, such as the first one in this article, shows Alevis under the Twelvers. It breaks across (and down) from there to "Other Alevis": Schools of Islamic theology#Baktāshism (Bektaşilik) (Bektashism and folk religion and Bektashi Order) then further down the tree is Işık Alevis. If these charts are acceptable made up (no sourcing) could someone add this unsupported idiom so we can follow it? Alevi, Alevism, Alavids, Alevileri, and now presenting "Aleviler" that is suppose to be an "idiom" or syncretic sect, sub-order or "branch", or definition that is suppose to characterize the links in the lead. None of this is supported in the article nor the "definition" section that has one reference. The rest of the references are used to support the compilation (collection) of Wikipedia links in the Classification of Aleviler section. Lacking sourcing to tie all these together how is this not synthesis. Lacking multiple sources to confirm that "Aleviler" is more than an idiom or definition, how can we support an independent article? The article states: "Many groups call themselves as Alevi but they don't share Muslim Alevi faith described in this article. All these people are called "Aleviler" in Turkish." (that is not referenced) and then there are more links and none (that I found) present "Aleviler". If we are going to !vote keep it would seem WP:IAR a better reasoning than "range of meanings, some of which may be rather broad just distinct meanings" and using Wikipedia to advance these. Otr500 (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't any dab page kind of an indiscriminate list of a range of meanings of a term, though? —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 16:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is true but what is the ambiguity here? There is no reliable sources to back up that the collection of names presented in the article are specifically identified as "Aleviler" or to verify from the article "...lots of diversified groups who call themselves by the name of Aleviler...". I have two browsers open with 22 tabs on one an 17 (not counting this one) on the other looking for notability not listed in the article. I cannot find even a combination of trivial coverage to advance this idiom stand-alone status. The amount of references listed in the article might make it seem notable but this is just a collection of names and sources and many are only related to this article through Alevism. Some of the references like CNN is used on other articles, again, related to Alevism, and one is actually only a note. The chart has an WP:OR caption at the bottom "Aleviler amongst Shia islam".

This article, self-identified idiom "figurative meaning" or "traditional way of saying something", is a term and as such it requires coverage or defining under an appropriate parent article or falls directly under Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Look at the Definition section of the article: "Aleviler (translated as Alevis)" gives a clear direction as to which article this idiom belongs.

Closing:This can be closed by a simple head count but should be closed with consideration of policies and guidelines. I still stand by the opinion that this article title goes against WP:OR, WP:NOT (a dictionary or indiscriminate collection of information), and WP:FRINGE and nothing presented in the "keep !votes" refutes this. Otr500 (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Marble Company

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

This company received some coverage in independent sources (i am not sure if they are reliable as well) but clearly fails per Wikipedia:CORPDEPTH. Saqib (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Before I can get to reasoning of failing Wikipedia:CORPDEPTH I would have to get past multiple "What Wikipedia is not" violations. Certainly not a directory or yellow page business advertising agent. This is just a business of which there are "millions" so there is nothing "worthy of notice" to the world at large. The article and a source advertises "Kalinga Stone flooring products". Just read the unsourced "Other Achievements" section for evidence of promoting. I guess for advertising engineered marble and quartz (US name) does sound better than "agglomerated", "reconstituted" or "compressed" stone. A company with he same name was formed in the United Arab Emirates in 1993. Lacking some clear notability as ascertained by multiple independant sources, that are not primary sources, press releases or industry related reporting, we will be jumping on the slippery slope of enticing the gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals and Wikipedia will have to succumb to being an advertising agent as well as changing policies and guidelines. Otr500 (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Otr500 above. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP, references fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND HighKing⁺⁺ 13:32, 19 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) 22:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Eatz

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

Promotional article. Not seeing enough in the article or through searching the Internet to pass WP:GNG. Promotional article created by a SPA. Edwardx (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 11:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 11:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 11:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Promotional" is understating things -- and the subject it's promoting is non-notable in the extreme. --Calton | Talk 14:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are numerous reliable sources, but they are all basically the same news report rehashed, and all appear to have been published within a two-day span. So BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. 104.163.140.141 (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here is an "inherent" notability claim that guarantees her an article just for existing, but a small two-day blip of purely local media coverage in this context just makes her a WP:BLP1E, not a topic who's passed the ten-year test for enduring significance yet. I live in Toronto and had already seen some of these exact sources before I had any knowledge that this article was starting to happen — but none of them made me think she needed an encyclopedia article for it, because I know how to discern the difference between coverage that actually supports notability and coverage that just flunks the WP:NOTNEWS test. Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 15 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 keep. Very rough, but there seems to be an agreement that the subject is notable, whether or not they meet WP:AUTHOR. ansh 666 05:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Baron Nicorvo

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

The article was created by a now blocked user who has some COI. the subject is author but apparently fails WP:AUTHORS. The cited references does not discuss the subject in depth but his non-notable work such as books. Some ref are self published so not independent. I am also unable to find significant coverage about the subject in independent RS thus nominating this for community to decide. Saqib (talk) 07:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2 newspaper profiles; first novel that has attracted attention. I expanded, sourced the article a little. I think he scrapes past the bar at WP:AUTHOR. I do see that he probably created his own page, enormous numbers of actors, writers, wanna-be self-help gurus, etc. do that. And, if they pass the bar, we keep the articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Please provide here those two 2 newspaper profiles. Would be easier to me and others to make assessment. --Saqib (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gazette (Cedar Rapids),Fighting the pull of poetry, this poet finds his muse in the military's role in his life in latest novel; The Capital Times, Thisbe Nissen and Jay Baron Nicorvo love being married to a writer (each other).E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so the former one is an Q/A type interview which is considered primary source and material contained in such Q&A type interviews are not acceptable to cite claims on WP therefore it fails to meet GNG. Latter one is clearly not WP:SIGCOV. The story discuss the work of the subject not himself. Also point to noted is that the standard set for sources to establish the WP:N is higher in AfD as compare to support claims within an article so I would say unless we get some solid sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability, we won't be able establish the WP:N. --Saqib (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem ot misunder our standards. Assertions made by an interviewee in a RS are WP reliable when cited to the interviewee (According to Nicorvo...). Interviews and feature stories in reliable, secondary sources not only count towards notability, they constitute it. Here, two of the interviews (WMUK and The Capital Times) are local and therefore count less; The Gazette (Cedar Rapids) is not local to him. Moreover, there is no requirement that we can source a bio for an individuals under WP:CREATIVE, if the work is notable, the creator is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to Nicorvo.. what is that? As per WP:IV, a subject may approach a niche magazine and succeed in getting an interview published, which is marginal and only barely more than self published, and may even be discounted under WP:NOTPROMOTION. Some are just softball Q&A allowing the interviewee to say anything he likes....These kinds of interviews are broadly unhelpful in establishing notability. full stop. I agree feature stories and profiles in independent RS are acceptable but these Q&A type interviews are not therefore one should not be using them to establish the WP:N. I'm not satisfied with the quality of sources provided here to establish the WP:N. And I agree if the work is notable, the author is notable but in this case, none of the subject's work (novel,book) is notable at least by WP standards. I'm afraid you are unable to provide here some solid coverage about the subject. --Saqib (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My iVote is based on WP:AUTHOR and the reception of his first novel, and the some press attention as a poet. In addito to the two interviews discussed above, there is a review and an interview that ran on WMUK, a review in Booklist, a capsule review in Library Journal , two inclusions in book-of-the-year list and some other stuff. As I said, to me, it seems to scrape by, but let's see what other editors think.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am skeptical if audio or video interviews are even placed in AfD's to establish the WP:N? I am willing to hear what others have to say about my nomination. --Saqib (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Audio and video in WP:RS media like the public radio station WMUK are treated in the same manner as other reliable media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but I said I am not sure if audio or video interviews are even placed in AfD's to establish the WP:N.. --Saqib (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep WP:NAUTHOR isn't met, but WP:GNG probably is. This isn't a BLP1E case now, but if the author is never heard from again, it might be considered one in the future. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: could you please explain why do you think the subject meet GNG? GNG means "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". --Saqib (talk) 07:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish WP:N. And I don't think the cited and provided sources meet the criteria for establishing notability. --Saqib (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, the ref from the gazette looks ok, there are other bits and pieces, I'm ok with audio/video being used as refs as long as it isn't user generated like youtube. Szzuk (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK I found an article on the novel The Standard Grand has been created just recently. The subject has received most of the coverage due to this novel so Wouldn't it be better idea to Redirect this BLP into the novel article ? @Szzuk, Power~enwiki, and E.M.Gregory: what are you thoughts? --Saqib (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- I almost always prefer to merge the book to the author's article when both are of marginal notability. As far as GNG, the various newspaper coverage (not entirely about either his book or his wife) is enough for me, though only barely; it's possible to interpret enough of it as trivial such that the person does not meet GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree, it is marginal but we may as well just leave it be. Szzuk (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with User:power~enwiki that it makes sense to write up this book on author's page. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:50, 22 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Bhuyia, Juang, Kol, Ho Rebellion

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

There were a series of rebellions but nothing like this title. The Ho don't seem to have been involved. " After the great famine of 1866, there was rebellion in the Keonjhar state. This was a rebellion against the British administration raised by the janajati tribes called Juanga, Bhuyans and Kol during April 1868."[16] There has been a serious competence issue with the creator of this and several other articles, including poor sourcing and poor English and well as a pov involving the Ho. Doug Weller talk 10:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The rebellions aren't known by the name in the title and they don't meet WP:GNG. The rebellions can be mentioned in articles of specific tribes, that is Juang people and Kol people, similar to the way it has been done at Ho people. —Gazoth (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:29, 16 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) 22:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shuchita Vyas

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

An article in the Times of India [17] says the subject won in some TV show called "Khelo gao jeeto" and then particiapted in India's Got Talent but despite all these, the subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guideline WP:MUSICBIO and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources.

The same bio was created under a different title at Suchita Vyas. Saqib (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 08:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 08:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only hint of notability is a short item in the Times of India. Doesn't meet notability requirements of WP:N.Tapered (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searching for coverage, I can only find one press release, published in two places. I added those to the article. I can't find any coverage of the "upcoming World Tour" which was supposedly in late 2017, and there is no mention of it at the article of tourmate Devang Patel. Fails notability requirements for inclusion at WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Scottyoak2 (talk) 14:48, 18 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 delete per nom. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selfie With Bajrangi

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

Not notable, not enough information on internet for its own article. User 261115 (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also the author blanked the article. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed. Gidev the Dood^(Talk) 17:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:00, 16 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) 22:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Navnit Tiwari

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

Politicians are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:POLITICIAN or at least they should meet basic GNG. this one fails both! Saqib (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 06:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 06:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, no significnat coverage in reliable sources that are indepndent of the subject and fails WP:NPOL. A Google news search for this politician return with a grand total of two hits and some passing mention in Hindi language news sources. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable for the purposes of getting a politician over WP:NPOL, but the sourcing isn't getting him over WP:GNG in lieu — the only properly footnoted references are primary source minutes of his own political party's own internal committee meetings, not reliable source coverage about him in media, and the contextless linkfarm of external links comprises media coverage about other things which happens to glancingly namecheck the subject's existence in the process of failing to be about the subject. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 14 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) 22:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bioscience.pk

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

The website does not appear to meet WP:WEBSITE and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources.. Saqib (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 06:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 06:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Made by a promotional SPA, too, as usual.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 11:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom DocumentError (talk) 20:34, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Rapp

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

Fails WP:NBIO. None of the sources actually independently cover the subject in-depth. In particular, the Orlando Sentinel source is just essentially a biography again. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Orlando Sentinel piece is actually a good source, but it was the only source I found that wasn't his obituary or a blog on a house he designed which was for sale. A trivial mention here: [18] and here [19] suggest there's more to the story, as he apparently did design several high-rise retirement buildings in the Orlando area. But there's just not that much there in terms of sourcing. SportingFlyer talk 05:57, 14 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 merge to GNU Compiler for Java. Killiondude (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GNU Interpreter for Java

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

Merge with GNU Compiler for Java. This article has no sources currently, and after some Googling, I'm not seeing any really strong sources to indicate notability. There are few good links for it at all, and pretty much all of them only mention it in tandem to GCJ. IagoQnsi (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I actually wondered why this AfD was in my talk page. Then I noticed that I had started the page in 2005. I support on the basis that if no one has improved from the most basic stub in all these years, it should be folded back into GNU Compiler for Java. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 06:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Szzuk (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Why is this at articles for deletion and not at proposed merge? Acebulf (talk) 03:12, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaori Maeda

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 06:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 06:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 06:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:12, 16 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) 22:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sakura Sena

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 06:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 06:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 06:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not passing WP:Pornbio or WP:GNG and is also a BLP violation as it has very personal information that is unreliably sourced Atlantic306 (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 22:12, 16 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. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Predictions of Wikipedia's end

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

Navel-gazing. Doesn't the WMF have long-term plans for the year 2100? Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 03:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep - no valid reason given for deletion. Merge possible, but can happen on the talk page — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:03, 14 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. Ignoring the rationale of the nominator as not based on policy, consensus is that this topic is not notable, and that the sources do not provide independent, in-depth coverage of the topic. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ontology (cryptocurrency)

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

Cryptocurrency crap. Diptanshu 💬 02:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening. --Calton | Talk 14:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A one-line listing of a cryptocurrency, arguably a speedy deletion. Zero sign that anyone has paid any attention whatsoever. --Calton | Talk 14:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most crypto-currencies aren't notable, and this one doesn't appear to be notable. The references are trivial and there's no claim of importance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all "Cryptocurrency crap" as stated by the nominator, is not a valid reason for deleting an article, as noted a few days ago when this discussion was closed. Second, this article should be kept because it meets the general notability guideline. It has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article is shorter than those for other cryptocurrencies, but I'm unaware of any deadline by when this must be completed. Chrisclear (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all "Cryptocurrency crap" as stated by the nominator, is not a valid reason for deleting an article Not the only reason now, is it? So, irrelevant.
Second, this article should be kept because it meets the general notability guideline That's not an argument, that's a claim -- a so-far-empty claim, at that. --Calton | Talk 17:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A valid reason to delete an article should be given by the editor proposing its deletion. It shouldn't be left to other editors to guess their reasoning. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to NEO (cryptocurrency). First reference is a mention. Second is a bit more detailed, but doesn't seem to be significant coverage. There is also [20] and one on a blacklisted site, but I'm not convinced that it's sufficient. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a cryptocurrency that, as stated above, has been covered significantly in reliable sources separate from the cryptocurrency itself. In addition, while the article is in need of work, There is no deadline, so therefore, it should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperChris (talk • contribs) 12:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Because I said so" is not a Wikipedia sourcing standard, ACTUAL SOURCES are the sourcing standard. Perhaps you could have added one or two instead of just adding a couple of categories [21] to the one-line stub. --Calton | Talk 22:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the 2 cited sources were "crystal ball" sources when they appeared. Now that the cryptocurrency has supposedly appeared - well it would likely require more than a one line article if it was a notable appearance. "Cryptocurrency crap" seems quite apt. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:A7 (No indication of importance) applies. The sources may establish WP:V, but they don't establish WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 'Cryptocurrency crap' is not on argument to delete an article. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:01, 23 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skylar Thomas

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

Appears to be a non-notable pianist. Tagged for lacking notability for several years. Tataral (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The google search looked promising, once it was adjusted to "Skylar Thomas music." Unfortunately, there were no dedicated articles from any independent reliable source. Ergo, delete. Tapered (talk) 06:32, 15 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 keep. Killiondude (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Hamburg stabbing attack

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

Sadly, things like this happen all the time. It is newsworthy today, but per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT, not notable. Natureium (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is an absolutely extraordinary crime, making headlines all over the world, from America to Asia. Even the police confirms this.--Greywin (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - this article has multi-national news coverage, notability is extremely evident Nosebagbear (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. All murders are tragic, but not all are notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing unusual about murder being in the breaking news cycle for a few days; in fact, WP:NOTNEWS explicitly warns us about it! If that were somehow not enough, our notability guidelines for events also warns us that a crime being violent does not translate to notability. It was too soon to create an article when you could not possibly determine any lasting significance, and to say there will be is crystalballing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except, of course, that he was an Asylum seeker whose application for legal resident status had been rejected had recently been rejected; and the fact that according to the page, had the couple not separated, perp would have had a chance at gaining legal resident status in Germany. A rather dramatic revenge killing. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except nothing. Nowhere does it say the perp's background is synonymous with notability. No where does it say Wikipedia is a drama.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Watch this if you dare (explicit). The eyewitness - obviously no German - says at 1:10: "They cut the head of the baby." [22] If this is a normal crime, in which normality do you live? In Germany, Europe this is everything but normal. It's absolutely exceptional. It is the sickest **** I ever saw in this city, in this country, on this continent.--Greywin (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Greywin: - I'm on your side of the discussion, but it just being a horrible, non-ordinary, crime doesn't make it notable. It's the global coverage received (partly as a response to that) that makes it. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree, thank you. But the global coverage is based on the exceptionality. And I had to read the sentence: "Sadly, things like this happen all the time." in the introduction above. So my post can be read mainly as a reply to that.--Greywin (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EVENTCRIT ("our notability guidelines for events") is cited as an argument for deletion, but EVENTCRIT actually reads: «Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources.» This event was covered by media (as cited in the article) as far away as Switzerland, Pakistan, Sweden, and the New York Times and the Washington Post. This event is so remarkable that the arguably most prestigious newspaper in Germany, the Süddeutsche Zeitung, actually broke its policy of "not report[ing] on ethnic, religious or national allegations of suspected offenders" in this case and appended a lengthy note for their reasons, including that this is a "public interest" case.^[1]. In the same article, the Süeddeutsche reports how the AfD, already the third largest party in Germany, immediately exploited the event for political gain in Parliament. If anything, WP:EVENTCRIT actually supports keeping this article. XavierItzm (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:RAPID.--Shrike (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources are global, including Switzerland, Pakistan, Sweden, and the New York Times and the Washington Post. The article therefore needs be kept because of WP:NCRIME. XavierItzm (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:RAPID and because worldwide coverage meets WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. The worldwide coverage meets WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has clearly received significant coverage. Polyamorph (talk) 08:55, 20 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 delete. per A11. (non-admin closure) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the land of padmasambhava

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

Renominating this because it was not noticed in this combined AfD closed as speedy. Rationale remain similar reproduced below.

"It is unfortunate there's no speedy criterion for films. So whatever garbage about film can be added to Wikipedia. This article for promotion of non notable film was created by the film owner Prosenjit bhuniya (talk · contribs) after his failed attempt to create autobiograpghy for himself using double accounts with the above account and Subho the traveller (talk · contribs) as well as various IP socks that removed speedy deletion tags. Also added above, is the other non notable fim that they created. The SPI is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prosenjit bhuniya."

–Ammarpad (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per my nomination as it's completely made up and useless. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 02:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G6. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 02:29, 14 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) 22:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Mitch and Kathy Show

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

Same thing applies from Mitchell Gibson there is absolutely no real coverage. Fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Radio shows, even nationally syndicated ones, are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because a primary source profile on the self-published website of their own home radio station or network technically verifies that they exist — they need to be the subject of enough media coverage, in sources other than the company that issues their paycheques, to pass WP:NMEDIA and/or WP:GNG. But there's no evidence of that being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 02:36, 15 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) 22:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Gibson

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

Non-notable healer with no real coverage. All coverage I can find is for someone totally unrelated. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Gibson does not appear to be covered in secondary sources. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 14:14, 14 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

California Credit Union

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

Non-notable credit union. I'm not sure how much of an impact being the 14th largest CU in CA is but there is virtually no coverage. Fails WP:GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough sources exist to prove notability. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So add them? All I got were a bunch of press releases. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 03:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not a single one that you've added are a valid source. See WP:NCORP. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 03:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They seemed like decent sources to me. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're all almost exclusively primary/press releases. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 04:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really? I didn't check *too* closely, but at least some of them have to be good, right? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 04:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was able to expand the article. Some references use the credit union's original name, Los Angeles Teachers Credit Union. This reference looks promising if I could find the full text of the source material. More coverage of an organization established in 1933 probably exists but might not be available online. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as improved -- there's enough to show notability DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 16 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 no consensus. Clearly fails WP:NFOOTY, but split on WP:GNG. ansh 666 05:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Davis (footballer)

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY; has not made an appearance in a fully professional league or for a national team in a full international. Little available to suggest he would pass WP:GNG Eagleash (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 02:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Maybe case of WP:TOOSOON but at this stage he fails WP:FOOTY NZFC^(talk) 03:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~ definitely a WP:TOOSOON but we really don't do a good job with "people who are about to be notable." While he may not be notable yet, he's certainly close to it. SportingFlyer talk 05:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC) UPDATE: Keep or Draftify I don't have a problem either way - the sourcing here is typically better than most people who don't pass WP:NFOOTY and probably passes WP:GNG, but I'm also happy draftifying. SportingFlyer talk 04:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - regardless of WP:NFOOTY, there are multiple reliable sources on this footballer, so it passes WP:GNG. With little effort I added two of them, additional reliable sources exist as well. Kees08 (Talk) 06:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy Although an interesting situation to be picked for the Singapore national squad, unless he plays for Fulham first team or the national team he still fails NFootball. There just needs a bit more to pass GNG in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are there a specific number of sources you would need? There were more; I thought I had added enough to pass WP:GNG Kees08 (Talk) 11:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kees08: I only just saw your reply, but I refer to WP:ROUTINE, it's always helpful to have citations to specific events with a player, but being picked for the national team isn't enough for me, a citation where he clearly plays football at top level would pass it for me on GNG and NFootball. Govvy (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: He clearly doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY and I'm nervous that's all you're taking into consideration: the question is whether he passes WP:GNG. I think there's enough non-routine coverage there to do it, across a couple different countries. SportingFlyer talk 17:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: GNG stipulates significant coverage and this article doesn't quite have that, between six citations that's only three sources. I really don't get why people don't take citations correctly, for instance a 26 year old footballer called Ante Bakmaz has 15 citations nine of them covering the player across multiple countries, they also cover his footballing career into European competition, this is more than enough to pass GNG for significant coverage yet people want to delete it? Govvy (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: The article may not have it yet, but what's important is the subject does, and I'm confident after a before search he passes WP:GNG (see [23] [24] (etc). Also, there are at least four sources in the article, and the two that are doubled up are from different points in time, drastically in one case. SportingFlyer talk 18:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify - Hello, I thought I'd give it a go and try some nominations. From what I have read I understand he dose not suit the standard of WP:NFOOTY and is subject for a WP:TOOSOON, however I feel in a couple of weeks, or months he will. In terms of WP:GNG he dose also clip with it and is at a mere pass but still in my opinion passes. Thanks. -- ATZNA 22:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)This account is a sock Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment - Reading the sources I feel he passes WP:GNG with no problem. I have put in 2 or 3 sources as well. ATZNA 04:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)~~This account is a sock Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Straits Times and ESPN references satisfy the GNG, IMO. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for footballers, which are absurdly low already.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your vote doesn't take into account whether he passes WP:GNG, though, just WP:NFOOTY. SportingFlyer talk 17:59, 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 redirect to Parkchester, Bronx. Sourced content can be merged from page history. ansh 666 05:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parkchester Department of Public Safety

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Having limited police powers does not make a security guard a cop, and even if it did, being a police department is not inherently notable. If their is discussion in NYPD's article about private agencies with policing powers in their jurisdiction, a redirect may be appropriate. John from Idegon (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails NCORP and GNG. Doing a BEFORE search, after eliminating SPS stuff, I'm left with a brief mention here, this ROUTINE mention, and this suit. It's not enough for notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT - to the page about the jurisdiction. The agency is not notable enough to justify an article. Acnetj (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - its jurisdiction is a non notable apartment complex, Acnetj. What would you have it redirect to? John from Idegon (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Here: Parkchester, Bronx. There's already a section with a link. Get rid of link and expand it a little bit. Acnetj (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - What is your justification for that, Acnetj? Parkchester is NOT this organization's jurisdiction. One private housing development in Parkchester, which also includes public housing, commercial property and other housing, is their jurisdiction. This is NOT a police department, but a security department of a business that has some police powers. To redirect this to the article on Parkchester makes about as much sense as redirecting an article on say the Sturgis, Michigan police department to the article on the state of Michigan. John from Idegon (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and selective merge to Parkchester, Bronx, a large residential community within New York City. Sources appear to be insufficient to support independent notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While I can understand WP:CHEAP in some cases, I'm not really seeing it here. I did a bit of cleanup and tried a little WP:BEFORE as well, but I'm not finding anything other than WP:PRIMARY and lacking the WP:ORGDEPTH required for organizations such as this. The organization exists, so it probably can be sufficiently sourced to be mentioned in Parkchester article, but that's about it. Not sure if there's even enough here for a acceptable stub since pretty much all of the content is unsourced and too excessively detailed per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Parkchester, Bronx. Perfectly reasonable solution. Better than losing information. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Parkchester, Bronx. Most of the stuff in this article is pure trivia and should be dropped; things like what kinds of cars they drive and what the uniform insignia looks like. To avoid WP:UNDUE, I would guess we need to bring over no more than one or two paragraphs. Cherry-pick the most significant items from the lede and history sections, maybe mention that they have to pass the New York State Peace Officer Training Course, and that they carry handguns. Maybe the death of Albert Acosta. That's it. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 22 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 delete. I am also protecting against recreation under each variant. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon T Michaels

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

KNHaw ^(talk) 00:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - no indication of notability, like previous versions of this article and Brandon Michaels and Brandon T. Michaels. ... discospinster _talk 00:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - No notability, promotional, and repeatedly recreated. _{Vermont | reply here} 00:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt Promotional bio that has been recreated for the third time at least. Elassint ^Hi 02:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 00:35, 15 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) 22:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tre'von Lester

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

Promotional in tone, almost certainly COI/autobiography, little actual content. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doing searches reveals Soundcloud and YouTube, with no actual sources, ergo WP:GNG fail. Also definitely fails WP:NMUSIC (no coverage, no label, no awards). RetroCraft314 (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clicking on all of the above search tools reveals zero notability. La porta, Cheech! (The door! from Godfather II) Tapered (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Kudos for adding an uppercase letter to the middle of his name to make it more noticeable... maybe that will kick in someday. A search reveals that he has gotten himself onto a lot of social media platforms and music listing services to promote himself. That's nice but Wikipedia is not a promotion tool. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:31, 16 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.

^ Thomas Hahn (13 April 2018). "The knife attack was preceded by a custody battle". Süddeutsche Zeitung (in German). Retrieved 15 April 2018. Editor's note —As a rule, the SZ does not report on ethnic, religious or national allegations of suspected offenders. We only deviate from this line agreed in the Press Code for justified public interest . This may be the case for exceptional offenses such as terrorist attacks or capital crimes, or for crimes committed by a larger group (like New Year's Eve 2015 in Cologne). There is also a public interest in search of a wanted man or if the biography of a suspected person is relevant to the offense. We decide on a case-by-case basis and are fundamentally reluctant not to foster prejudice against minorities.

[1] "Boston Globe". The Boston Globe.

[2] Greene, Roy. "How the Globe became the third US Newspaper to Publish the Pentagon Papers". The Boston Globe.

[3] "Church allowed abuse by priests for years".

[4] Balcıoğlu, Tahir Harimî [in Turkish] (1940). Hilmi Ziya Ülken [in Turkish] (ed.). Türk tarihinde mezhep cereyanları (in Turkish). İstanbul: Kanaat Yayınları, Ahmed Sait tab'ı.For example this book uses the term ALEVİLER for various groups who are not Alevi, in short Aleviness is the Kızılbaş faith)

[5] Thomas Hahn (13 April 2018). "The knife attack was preceded by a custody battle". Süddeutsche Zeitung (in German). Retrieved 15 April 2018. Editor's note —As a rule, the SZ does not report on ethnic, religious or national allegations of suspected offenders. We only deviate from this line agreed in the Press Code for justified public interest . This may be the case for exceptional offenses such as terrorist attacks or capital crimes, or for crimes committed by a larger group (like New Year's Eve 2015 in Cologne). There is also a public interest in search of a wanted man or if the biography of a suspected person is relevant to the offense. We decide on a case-by-case basis and are fundamentally reluctant not to foster prejudice against minorities.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]