Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 4 April 6 April >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Miller[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Blair Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find sources written by him but not about him. As a procedural note, this article has been deleted before. I restored the original text (to show WP:G4 was not appropriate) but was reverted by the nominator of this AfD with no comment. I have restored the original history so people can cross-compare the differences. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:00, 7 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) 00:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Green printing[edit]

Green printing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically an essay on a concept that's not much of an encyclopedic topic. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rip Rapson[edit]

Rip Rapson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. No references, since article was created in 2004. Some coverage but seems to be the foundations. scope_creep (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Was created as a redirect in 2004, made into an article in 2008. There appears to be either a COI or a SPA in 2008 riprapson, last edited in Nov/2008, so I doubt the ping will be successful. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it would seem like somebody could come up with an article for this guy that actually has some references. But since the article has been around since 2004/2008 nobody has. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt obvious COI, although that is not a particularly strong reason on its own for deletion. There are a few good sources out there in the Detroit Free Press. However the coverage is mostly just namechecks of him doing his job, getting quoted. When you add the low notability and the COI, it's time to delete.104.163.158.37 (talk) 22:38, 8 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. Courcelles (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

White Christmas (Deana Martin album)[edit]

White Christmas (Deana Martin album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Not all albums made by notable artists are notable (Wikipedia:INHERITED.) DB entry at AllMusic (https://www.allmusic.com/album/white-christmas-mw0002299554) has no reviewer rating or review. I'll grant that there may be some offline sources that may support notability, but it's been more than three years since such sources were requested and nothing was forthcoming. I'm left to assume that the album fails WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are no refs. Szzuk (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Question: Is that a vote based on the current state of the article, or after doing the research? WP:NEXIST. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I googled it, i should more correctly have said there are no worthwhile refs, there is one primary ref in the article and a paragraph elsewhere which I remember seeing, i was being a bit lazy, I'm happy to reconsider the vote if you come up with good refs. Szzuk (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Note that Deana Martin's live performances of the song "White Christmas" have received media notice, but this album apparently has not. I can find no coverage beyond routine listings of its existence. Here is one very brief review: [1], but there is not much else, not even at AllMusic. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exploration in Europe[edit]

Exploration in Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contains no useful information. Rathfelder (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:30, 6 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. Sandstein 06:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Medford Community Cablevision, Inc.[edit]

Medford Community Cablevision, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local public access station, fails WP:GNG & controversy section falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Also appears to have folded. Most of the sourcing is blogs. It's possible notability claim is that it won the ""Overall Excellence in Public Television"" award. However, the award does not seem to be notable and I don't see any independent reliable source coverage of it. Rusf10 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as the award seems significant and they produce/produced quite a lot of original content which is one of the notability considerations for television channels Atlantic306 (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We do not give presumptive notability because an award "seems" significant; we give it because an award is significant. The bar to clear there isn't these "Hometown Media Awards" for which there are only five Google News cites [2], all but one of them casual mentions from the same Long Island weekly website, but Emmy Awards, and I would appreciate Atlantic306 clarifying what exactly about these awards they feel is significant enough to meet the GNG. Certainly no hometown community access cable station does, without some extraordinary evidence that hasn't been submitted. Ravenswing 19:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
was assuming AGF where the article states: "Medford Community Cablevision has been internationally recognized by the Alliance for Community Media in 2008 and 2011 for "Overall Excellence in Public Television"; the highest award presented to a public access facility" Atlantic306 (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think AGF applies to article content. Claims made in an article must be backed up by reliable sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Especially where facts in an article are being challenged (or when the subject's notability's being challenged), we don't just swallow an article's assertions uncritically. Quite possibly these awards are the highest this "Alliance for Community Media" (and I note its own article is cited only from its own website) proffers, but seeing as these awards have barely been noticed by small town media in only two areas, I really rather doubt this claim of "international" recognition, and the notion that they're more prestigious than regional Emmys -- which have been given to public broadcasting and are not always themselves taken as prima facie proof of notability -- is farcical. Truth be told, I think that voters at AfD have as much responsibility to investigate the notability of a subject as nominators do. Ravenswing 15:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the "awards" section for lack of independent sources, which, presumably, removes it from this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep station in a large, upscale suburb home that is the home of a major university, and apparently replete with folks who want to be on TV, or to produce TV shows. So you get stories in the major regional daily , the Boston Globe with headlines like "Medford ready to launch `reality' energy savings series" about a TV3 program on energy savings in the home (2007). Article has quite a bit of text - some of it sourced - about local programs and controversies over local programs. In addition, I have added a section about a dispute over the station's management in 2006-11 that was intensely covered in the Boston Globe. The article is in need of improvement and tightening, in particular, the the "awards" appear to be so non-notable that I have removed that entire section - it had long been tagged for sourcing and the sourcing was all primary. However, coverage of station itself - some now on page and more available in a Proquest or other archive searches - does pass WP:NCORP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that relevant? I could also link to several discussions about public access stations that resulted in delete. WP:OSE???--Rusf10 (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rusf, I hope you'll take another look at this one. Your deletion nomination had to do with the awards, I agree that they were over-hyped and removed them. You cited poor sourcing. However, there is a lot of coverage of the station and its programming over the decades, enough, I believe, to pass WP:SIGCOV. It is, of course, true that much of the INDEPTH coverage is in the password-protected regional daily, the Boston Globe, and that I use the password protected Proquest newspaper archive, but even a look at the headlines of the articles I added are, I think, persuasive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Zoukis[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Christopher Zoukis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a writer and activist, written and sourced differently enough from the first attempt to not qualify for speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted content but still not sourced well enough to actually get him over a Wikipedia inclusion criterion. Of all the footnotes here, he's the bylined author, not the written-about-by-other-people subject, of 20 of them; several more are his "our contributors" directories of content on the websites of publications he's been a contributor to (which are not notability-assisting sources); another bunch are Q&A interviews in which he's speaking about himself (which are not notability-assisting sources); several more represent non-notable literary awards sourced to their own websites (which is not support for notability; the extent to which a literary award counts as a notability claim is strictly coterminous with the extent to which media report the granting of that award as news); several more are to blogs rather than reliable media; some more are just glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things; and still more are primary source documents, such as the texts of court judgements. Out of 52 footnotes here, there's literally just one that counts for beans toward making a person notable enough for an encyclopedia article -- and that one, a review of one of his books in Kirkus Reviews, doesn't count for enough beans all by itself as an article's only bean-counting source. This referencing is still not even close to good enough. As well, the creator has a paid editing disclosure on their own userpage despite having virtually no prior edit history (not even deleted contributions) prior to creating this -- thus suggesting that this probably is the paid PR job. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request help editing rather than deleting. Consideration was given towards notability and thought it was met. As well, user disclosure should not be a consideration. Content is unbiased and intended to be valuable. Disclosure as a marketing professional is a requirement. SuperW from Canrank 11:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperW from CanRank (talk • contribs) [reply]
Yes, and the reason it's a requirement is precisely because the conflict of interest works against you if the article falls short of our requirements. It's impossible for us to entirely prevent paid editing from happening at all, but it is technically against our rules — we have no mechanism to prevent any of our rules from getting broken before it happens, and the only recourse we have is to review the results of the rule breach after it's already been broken. So we require disclosure of paid editing, because such articles require a special level of heightened scrutiny to ensure that our rules aren't getting gamed by improper sourcing and public relations advertorialism — but that doesn't mean paid editing is an acceptable path to getting a topic into Wikipedia. (For starters, if a person was really, truly notable by our definition of notability, then he wouldn't have to pay anybody at all to get in here, because the article would already have gotten created organically.) Bearcat (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Getting cited as the author of sources on other pages about other topics is not, in and of itself, a notability freebie that entitles a person to have a standalone Wikipedia article about him in the absence of valid, notability-supporting reliable sources to support it. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Edits to the page have been completed to remove Zoukis sourced material and references. New sources added for awards and reviews. SuperW from CanRank talk 12:38, 5 April 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are still sources in the article in which Zoukis is the author and not the subject, and you still haven't added reliable sources that bolster notability at all: the awards are still referenced to their own self-published websites about themselves, not to any evidence of media coverage to establish that the awards are notable ones, and the book reviews are, apart from Kirkus, still from blogs rather than real media outlets. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I second comment made by Nom. Article is so overstuffed with primary sources that I am tempted to just iVote: delete as PROMO. However, my initial search did turn up this 2016 Seattle Times Q & A]: “My Words Are Dangerous”: An Interview with Christopher Zoukis (valid as evidence of notability, but all facts sourced to this interview would have to be qualified with phrasing like, "According to Zoukis, he was first arrested for..." . If someone is willing to reduce the article to material that can be sourced to WP:RS, feel free to ping me to revisit and make a (time consuming,) thorough assessment.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as PROMO for non-notable writer. Fails WP:BASIC. News and book searches generate lots of hits on books and articles Zoukis wrote, primarily in Huff Post. There are also a handful of articles in RS in which he is briefly quoted. What is lacking here is reliable, secondary material about Zoukis.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, PROMO for non-notable writer. Might be able to have an article on the book he authored if there are enough reliable sources to back it up. Author is just mentioned in most of the sources, some sources are not reliable. Kees08 (Talk) 05:48, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lynette Sweet[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lynette Sweet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local politician. Her only political office was as a BART board member; while BART is significant, its officials (except for general managers) tend to be town-level politicians that fly under the radar except at election season. The only news stories about her are trivial policy points, and for her failed candidacy for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. There's just not enough there to establish a real claim of notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not passing the test of notability. Acnetj (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not pass WP:POLITICIAN and not otherwise notable under WP:GNG. Two previous AfDs were keeps, but the first one had only two voters, and the second one was a mistake, as local press coverage of a politician who is not otherwise notable performing their political role does not grant them automatic notability. SportingFlyer talk 21:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a member of a municipal transit board is not an WP:NPOL pass in and of itself, but the article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to suggest that she would get over WP:GNG in lieu. A person does not clear GNG by getting quoted as a giver of soundbite in articles about other things — she gets over GNG by being substantively the subject of media coverage about her, but that's not what any of the sources here are showing: three of them are primary sources, and the other two are soundbites. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Axmed Gaab[edit]

Axmed Gaab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable wadi with no other information. Mangoe (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brampton Courthouse Shooting[edit]

Brampton Courthouse Shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced article about an obscure shooting incident that fails the ten-year test for enduring significance. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, so it's not our role to create or maintain an article about every single thing that happens anywhere at all, but this demonstrates no enduring notability. There are just two sources here, one of which is reduplicated as a third footnote for no apparent reason: one is a press release from the SIU, who were directly involved in the matter and thus represent a primary source that verifies facts but does not assist in demonstrating notability, and the other is a single piece of purely local human interest coverage about the recovery of the cop involved. We do not need to maintain an article about every single incident in which somebody ever got shot, and this is not sourced anywhere near well enough to make this shooting a special case. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Local / national level coverage mainly on on the news-cycle in March 2014 and then a bit more as bits and pieces came out of the investigation. Not mentions out there after 2014 in news orgs.Icewhiz (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete sad instance of family-related violence; routine/minor news coverage that soon petered out.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only way I see of salvaging the article would be if someone could bring WP:RS into why the actions of a policeman shot in the abdomen and of another one shot at (but mercifully missed) require an internal affairs investigation. I guess Ontario cops should from now hand flowers and say "pretty please" while under armed attack! In the absence of such context of the societal impact of the bureaucratic trial the victim policemen underwent, the article as it stands does not seem salvageable. Therefore, alas!, Delete. XavierItzm (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I read IA investigates all shootings. They were criticized for the time it took - but they closed the case some six months after the shooting and praised the officers involved (which was the last spurt of coverage this got - in Oct 2014).Icewhiz (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Icewhiz is correct. At least in Ontario (I can't speak for elsewhere), the SIU always investigates every shooting that involves cops at all, to determine whether proper procedures were followed and whether disciplinary action is needed or not. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Amin Asadi[edit]

Mohammad Amin Asadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Survivors Book Series[edit]

The Survivors Book Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable self-published book. There is basically nothing for sources available that does not appear to itself also be self-published. GMGtalk 18:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this does seem to be a clear case of trying to use Wikipedia for publicity for a new series of self-published books. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, bit late now but its an advert for a self published book. Szzuk (talk) 16:00, 10 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. MBisanz talk 13:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Accidents[edit]

Beautiful Accidents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a film, whose only stated claim of notability is that a "work in progress" excerpt screened last year at the local film festival of the city where the filmmaker works. This is a second-tier flm festival where a screening is not an automatic WP:NFILM pass in and of itself for a film that has yet to screen anywhere else, the way it would be at a top-tier festival like Cannes or TIFF or Sundance or Berlin, and the referencing here is nowhere near adequate to deem it as passing WP:GNG in lieu: the references are an online ticket seller, IMDb (which is not a reliable or notability-conferring source), and a small smattering of purely local coverage in the same city's local media -- including duplicated repetition of the same link to one radio station's "contact us" page instead of to any page that actually verifies that the station actually aired any content about the film. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when it actually opens and screens wider than just Cinéfest alone, and/or it gets Canadian Screen Award nominations, but one screening at the filmmaker's own hometown film festival is not in and of itself enough to make a film notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a crowd source and personal finance film which was abandoned, it is only interesting because of the efforts to finish the cut despite there not being enough footage, it appears they decided to use behind the scenes footage. It was shown at a festival, and that is about it. Szzuk (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No indication from either the references in the article or my own searching that this meets WP:NFILM, and in particular, fails WP:NFF. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:58, 13 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. Boldy closing this as a blatant hoax per G3. Not sure how this has lasted 6 years. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OT.W[edit]

OT.W (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references. Not linked to by any other page. No proof this is a "thing" at all. Deroof (talk) 17:58, 5 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 The Ingraham Angle#Boycott. Numerically this is a three-way split between keep, merge and delete. Arguments are all over the place but generally can't be clearly weighed by me in terms of policy compliance. To me, this indicates that we have consensus not to cover this topic as a separate article, but no consensus to delete it. Accordingly, a merger is the outcome best reflecting this discussion. What content is to be merged where to exactly can still be discussed. Sandstein 11:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boycott of The Ingraham Angle[edit]

Boycott of The Ingraham Angle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an event that happened in the news about news. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Article has no encyclopedic value on its own and basically amounts to a gossip piece - essentially meets criteria for WP:COATRACK. Could be merged with David Hogg and/or Laura Ingraham but those articles already have content on this minor event. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOT applies.--MONGO 18:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the relevant parts to the Hogg and Ingraham articles. Per WP:NOTNEWS, the boycott is relevant to the people involved but does not have sufficient enduring notability for its own article. -- irn (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – I'm not totally convinced that this needs its own article, and I have my doubts regarding its enduring notability. But the problem of where to merge the article is significant. The article does a good job of putting all the relevant information together in one place without running into problems of WP:UNDUE, which would be hard on any of the other target articles. I also hadn't seen any reporting about the boycott beyond simply rehashing the drama of Ingraham vs Hogg, but MrX just added some to the article[3][4] and Tomwsulcer provided one below[5], and then there's Kyle Kashuv's failed copycat boycott, all of which speak to a more enduring notability. -- irn (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS, as per above. One too many articles are being created about the gun violence protests now. Werehilly (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The peak of this article is the "List of advertisers in boycott" section. It currently contains only one source. If we merge this anywhere, I believe that this stand-alone list would not be included on any other article. wumbolo ^^^ 20:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is well sourced, with multiple points of view, and is not gossip, but a serious boycott of a nationwide television news show. Wasabi,the,one (talk)
  • merge to The Ingraham Angle When there's a not-that-long, current controversy article that's about the same length as its parent, there's no need for two articles. Mangoe (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Hosts like her would have long list of such articles if every controversy (which they create whether intentionally or not) has its own article, and would have a separate article for the list (List of controversies involving Laura Ingraham). Acnetj (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are countless multi-sided sources on this topic that could much bolster the points, and make the article much larger. I will work to make it so. Tronald-Drumpf (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)— Tronald-Drumpf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • NOTE Less than a few hours old single-purpose account has been indeffed for disruptive editing and trolling activity. Comments and !vote should be discounted per WP:DENY. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • This user is a WP:HAND of another user who voted here. Struck vote. --Yamla (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject has received significant coverage in major newspapers (Boston Globe, Seattle PI, The New York Times) and magazines (GQ, AdAge, Inc., Newsweek, Variety) across the US, and even internationally (Paris Match, The Guardian, Deutsche Welle, Sydney Morning Herald, Japan Times). It easily meets GNG and is an important part of historical impact of student activism following the watershed Stoneman Douglas shooting. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply since the subject is not routine reporting. The material is too long to be merged into another article without trimming essential information. Mysteriously, the OP recently voted strong keep, at an AfD for a far-less-notable subject.[6].- MrX 🖋 21:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX: feel free to renominate the other article at AfD. You say that it is "far less notable" but it was speedily kept per WP:SNOW, notability was demonstrated at the discussion, notability is still demonstrated in the article, the subject appeared in dozens of RS just like this event and you keep saying that article is non-notable and it wasn't even a week since the AfD you started. wumbolo ^^^ 22:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
this article was never nominated for speedy deletion, but the aforementioned article was. It seems fit that if an article that was declared non notable gets kept, this article (which was never nominated for speedy deletion for being non notable) should get kept as well. Tronald-Drumpf (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)— Tronald-Drumpf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • NOTE Less than a few hours old single purpose account has been indeffed for disruptive editing and trolling activity. Comments and !vote should be discounted per WP:DENY. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In addition to my point of view on this article, I also believe that a case can be made that this entire AfD was made from a political motive. Tronald-Drumpf (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)— Tronald-Drumpf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • NOTE Less than a few hours old single purpose account has been indeffed for disruptive editing and trolling activity. Comments and !vote should be discounted per WP:DENY. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith, and don't accuse someone of POV per WP:CIVIL. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 22:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - MrX 🖋 21:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - MrX 🖋 21:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. - MrX 🖋 21:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Poorly-contrived nomination that reeks of "I do not like it". The subject is well-sourced and the coverage continues through today (Ingraham's 'Celebrity' Sentiment Declines By A Third Post-Hogg Tweet, “YOU DON’T ATTACK A KID”: INSIDE THE LAURA INGRAHAM NIGHTMARE AT FOX NEWS. In particular, those two sources show an extension of the subject matter, beyond the boycott what is notable now is the effect this is having on Ingraham's reputation, show, and possibly her career. This material far exceeds what could be covered in either Ingraham's or Hogg's articles without creating issues of undue coverage. This is a slamdunk WP:SPINOFF. TheValeyard (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge-Very little information is in this article which isn't already in the Hogg bio. It's important but I don't think it warrants a separate article. Display name 99 (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are clearly multitudes of sources and the article can be expanded immensely. Merging the article will not allow for all of the relevant information that is out there to be in a supposed merger. Tronald-Drumpf (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Tronald-Drumpf— Tronald-Drumpf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • NOTE Less than a few hours old single-purpose account has been indeffed for disruptive editing and trolling activity. Comments and !vote should be discounted per WP:DENY. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hogg and Ingraham. This is borderline but I don't think it was an important enough boycott for its own article. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 23:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Would someone please explain to Winkelvi that we do not strike through other editor's comments simply because they have been blocked?- MrX 🖋 01:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's common practice in Wikipedia to strike the comments of brand new single purpose accounts that have been indeffed for vandalism and/or trolling to have their comments and/or !votes striken per WP:DENY. This is also typical of sock accounts, and, considering the amount of Wikipedia savvy the SPA demonstrated, this is likely the case in this situation. !Votes from socks and/or accounts that have been indeffed for trolling with their !votes/comments should be stricken as ineligible to contribute. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Incorrect. The user was blocked for violating WP:UPOL. That is not grounds for striking their good faith comments.- MrX 🖋 01:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The indef is the result of a username complaint, however, the block notice reads: "Your account has been blocked indefinitely because the chosen username is a clear violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information). We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior." The intent to not contribute positively as well as trolling behavior is evident in their comments here. WP:DENY applies. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser as this all looks familiar.--MONGO 01:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a specific suspicion, feel free to do that, MONGO. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, I struck out the comments from the Tronald account, just now. I did so because although the original block was not for sockpuppetry, I subsequently blocked the original account and left a comment on the sock account, showing the sockpuppetry. I can reblock the Tronald account if you wish. The closer is welcome to take the Tronald comments (and vote) into account if they wish, ignoring my strike-throughs, though I believe this would be inappropriate given the abuse of WP:SOCK and as per WP:DENY (DENY, of course, being an essay rather than policy). --Yamla (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this is more than a "not news" flash-in-the-pan. It's significance is only beginning and it may be seen as a watershed.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlohcierekim: "its significance is only beginning". Do you have a reference for that fact or did you look into a WP:CRYSTALBALL? wumbolo ^^^ 09:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cory Doctorow posted today about how more people were boycotting/dropping sponsorships. Coverage becomes more significant as the impact increases. The impact is significant and notable. Looks like I scried events in my crystal ball pretty clearly. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. This could be a textbook example for NOTNEWS. As an aside, I do wish people would quit adding every story about the Florida shooting to the school project. This boy has no more to do with schools than chalk does. John from Idegon (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTNEWS states "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." A boycott that is still being reported on ten days later, and that has been the subject of international news coverage would seem to qualify as a significant event. I know it's not a soccer match, but still pretty important from a historical standpoint. I'm not sure when the last time was that a 17 year old spawned a major boycott within hours of calling for one. My guess would be never.- MrX 🖋 19:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As of April 6th, there are 20 references (ie sourcing: not a problem). Does WP:NOTNEWS apply? Point 2 says Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events and this story has legs beyond one news cycle, not just a day or two, but weeks, with much back and forth (will Ingraham get fired? will advertisers go back to the show? -- these are ongoing developments). NOTNEWS discourages "routine news" such as announcements; the boycott isn't routine. NOTNEWS discourages original research; again, not the case. So NOTNEWS does not really apply here. It is not just a classic David and Goliath story, with the underdog (David Hogg) taking down the cyberbully (Laura Ingraham), but it has relevance for cyberbullying in general, for advertisers, as part of the culture war, and politics. Subject is notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC) About the nominator's WP:COATRACK argument; first COATRACK is not official policy; second, the gist of the coatrack complaint is that when an article ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely, that is, the article becomes a "rack" upon which other topics are hung like coats, obscuring the rack -- if so, in this case, what is the "coat" and what is the "rack"? For me, the subject and content match -- the subject is the boycott of Ingraham's show, the content matches, QED no coatrack.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomwsulcer: from how I understand the nomination, the coats are the continuous backward-forward Twitter exchanges between Hogg/Ingraham/Fox News. Regarding your points, we should talk about Ingraham's actions on her article (WP:POVFORK) and "as part of the culture war" is not an excuse (WP:CRYSTALBALL). Now let's get to the advertisers. If we remove all the coats from this article, what is left? That's right, advertisers. The point of this article is the "List of advertisers in boycott" section. So judge the notability of the boycott on that section, and not on the fight between Hogg and Ingraham/Fox on Twitter. wumbolo ^^^ 14:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wumbolo: You're saying this article is really about the advertisers? It's really about the boycott, specifically the effort to pressure advertisers to drop Ingraham's show; the content all focuses on this theme, including the back-and-forth exchanges (which I don't see as 'coats'). Like I said, WP:COATRACK isn't really policy regardless. That said, the argument about WP:POVFORK is a stronger argument for deletion, that is, is the subject matter of this article really about Laura Ingraham or her show The Ingraham Angle, and this article a fork to try to avoid achieving consensus on either? And here's where I see this boycott as a rather new and notable phenomenon, bigger and different from simply Ingraham or her show. It's the real power of social media and moral force to bring about substantive change in the marketplace of ideas. A test of this: could anybody have predicted, in advance, after what Ingraham said, that a student-turned-activist would bring down a cyberbullying talk show host? With a tweet? This is new stuff, different from any standard boycott.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Determining enduring notability in the moment is an inherently subjective and speculative exercise. When I consider the enduring notability of an event, I imagine how it will be viewed in the future (like the ten year test). Yes, this has legs beyond one news cycle, but I don't think that's enough. (But, again, that's pretty subjective.)
The other relevant guideline here is WP:NEVENT. I think it falls into the “may or may not be notable” category, and then to the subpoints, I’d say there is at best a weak argument that it meets all of the coverage criteria, but it meets neither of the event criteria. Yet. That could change if Ingraham loses the show or if this turns into a template used by others (like Kyle Kashuv's attempted copycat boycott of Eichenwald), but we're just not there yet.
Regarding its relevance for cyberbullying, advertising, culture wars, and politics, that could be a compelling argument, but I don't see it being discussed that way in the sources. If you have sources that attest to its relevance in that regard, I’d invite you to post them here. -- irn (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The ten year test is not an official guideline. The WP:NEVENT is an official guideline, but it says The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded and I think this clearly applies in this case: the boycott is significant, interesting, unusual and has attracted sufficient attention. If you need more sources talking about the relevance of the boycott, check out GQ and Morning Joe and Hollywood Life and Daily Kos and many others. Like, even Republican strategist is weighing in why the boycott has been successful, that is, there are ramifications for talk show standards, political discourse, and the power of media (ie Twitter versus Fox is akin to David versus Goliath). It's a qualitatively new type of boycott, noteworthy. Overall, the strongest of the delete arguments I think is the POVFORK one, and that's open to interpretation, but my sense is the article should still stay for reasons mentioned above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*Admins, please note that the ip6 user above has made few edits and fits every definition of what this project terns a single purpose account. The person is insistent on obscuring this fact, so I am highlighting this with a proper response rather than a tag, thus no more hiding. TheValeyard (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG: do you think the list of advertisers in boycott wouldn't create WP:UNDUE weight upon that article after the merge? wumbolo ^^^ 14:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. The list should be trimmed anyway, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of information. We should also take care not be perceived as advocating for or against the boycott, per WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV, and I feel that naming all participants accomplishes exactly that. Noting a few of the most notable brands in the prose should be well enough. — JFG talk 14:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here, all we decide is whether to keep, delete, merge or redirect. If the latter two, where. What gets merged is a topic for the target's talk page, not a factor in whether we merge it. Frankly, since there isn't any consensus on where to merge, if you don't want the article to stay, a delete !vote is all that makes sense. John from Idegon (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As other editors also invoked WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I have now removed the full list of advertisers, mentioned some of them in the prose, and kept a citation to the full list.[7] I still !vote to merge. — JFG talk 21:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and other delete comments (single event, not news, etc) HunterM267 talk 15:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • admin note I guess it's not necessary to highlight the edit of the 2A02 anon with a "SPA" note. Hopefully, this will not proceed to become an unseemly edit war. Let's just leave that alone. Spirited debate is great. Edit warring not so much.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*I think it is quite necessary, given their insistence on obscuring their edit history. But they can have their Pyrrhic victory over the tag, sure, I'll just leave a response to their "vote" in its place. Problem solved. TheValeyard (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Ingraham Angle article with mentions in the articles of David Hogg and Laura Ingraham. Wikipedia is not WP:INDISCRIMINATE but this has received substantial coverage with regards to the three articles mentioned. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge most of the content to The Ingraham Angle; the boycott may very well be the most significant thing that happened to this program, but it can still all be covered in the same article. When merging, I would recommend dropping the full list of advertisers, apart from a few most notable companies, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The rest of the content is good and can be merged into the target article. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination; content fork and Wikipedia is not a newspaper; most of this is already covered in other noted articles. Kierzek (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is well referenced with 23 solid sources and the significant coverage in those reliable sources shows that this boycott is notable. Historians studying the tumultuous events of 2018 will benefit from this carefully curated article about this effective boycott, since journalism is "the first rough draft of history". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Successful is what way, Cullen328? Advertisers left her show. So what? The show still exists, she still has advertisers, and she will get more. The only thing successful in this scenario is Laura Ingraham. Having one of the top rated cable shows since it premiered seems pretty successful to me. As far as it being an historical event...it's a blip that went away the day after it happened. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Successful (I actually wrote "effective") in that 15 national advertisers cancelled, Winkelvi. Neither your opinion of the boycott nor mine changes the indisputable fact that it has received significant coverage in a large number of prominent reliable independent sources, and is therefore notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant coverage" for a couple of days. And certainly not something that's going to go down in the annals of history. Hogg's desire to get advertisers to leave Ingraham's show may have been momentarily successful, but advertisers are a dime a dozen in television. It's not as if she has no advertisers now and won't be able to fill all fifteen slots by the time she's back on the air next week. The final result is not what I call successful. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voluntarily hatting partially as a compromise. TheValeyard (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Looks like your bias is showing, given the insipid parroting of the subject's cable tv ratings, and gloating over your (wrong perception) of the effects of the boycott. Whether the boycott is measured as a success or a failure is wholly irrelevant when considering the notability of the subject matter. We consider whether the sourcing is reliable and if it is sustained over a period of time to overcome wp:notnews. Your refutations of these points has thus far been woefully inadequate. TheValeyard (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"your bias is showing" What's "showing" is my knowledge of business in the area of advertising and media. "We consider whether the sourcing is reliable and if it is sustained over a period of time to overcome wp:notnews." Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day: a relative newbie with a little over a year of wiki-experience and less than 1200 edits telling a veteran editor of nearly six years and almost 27,000 edits what makes for good content and an encyclopedic article. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do not belittle newer editors on that basis, Winkelvi. It is unseemly and irrelevant. I have 50,000 edits, almost nine years of editing and was elected administrator with overwhelming support. That too is irrelevant. What matters here is the strength of our arguments in line with policies and guidelines. Stick to that, please. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And neither should newbies talk down to experienced editors -- doing so is in the same vein as the reason behind WP:DTTR. As well, editors should not accuse someone of "bias", especially when no bias is being shown. Some would (rightly) say to do so is a personal attack, would they not? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My dear winkelvi, Yes, I have been here for only a year, but slashdot, Gizmodo, and other places I've been at for many, many years are really no different, in terms of the quality (or lack) of discussion and the veterans, i.e. you, who attempt to dominate discussions with vain appeal to authority logical fallacies. (Really, the only thing difficult to master in the Wikipedia is this antiquated discussion and indenting system, it's like designing a website in Notepad). I'm sorry that you feel chagrined at being put in your place by a so-called "newbie", but the fact remains that this story has received significant coverage over several weeks. It is not a flash in a pan, it is not insignificant or "just news", and you have been unable to refute these points. This was a spiteful nomination that came after your defeat at Talk:David_Hogg_(activist)#Discussion, with the consultation-slash-solicitation with the only user that agreed with your point of view, User_talk:Display_name_99#FYI. TheValeyard (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"you, who attempt to dominate discussions with vain appeal to authority logical fallacies. Personal attack. Nice. Please read WP:NPA. " I'm sorry that you feel chagrined at being put in your place <snort> Uh, no - I don't feel put in my place. <snort again> "this story has received significant coverage over several weeks." Nope. It's been going on just a little over a week. Next? "This was a spiteful nomination that came after your defeat at Talk:David_Hogg_(activist)#Discussion" Ah, another personal attack. Have you read WP:NPA yet? First of all, we're supposed to be looking for consensus, not to WP:WIN. Sorry you see it as something that's very anti- the Wikipedia five pillars and why we're supposed to be here. And no, this is not a "spiteful nomination". It's a necessary nomination. As evidenced by the number of "Delete" and "Merge" !votes, no less. "with the consultation-slash-solicitation with the only user that agreed with your point of view..." Personal attack #3. You're on a roll. (that's not a good thing). WP:NPA is waiting for your to review and absorb. Ta. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, Winkelvi, calm down. Your behavior here is unseemly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you, Cullen328, that I was quite calm when I wrote what I did above. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, then you did a very good job of simulating agitation, Winkelvi. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What you saw was irritation, not agitation, with a pinch of amusement, Cullen328. Never forget that in a text-only environment, making assumptions is easy but asking questions first is wise. Especially for administrators making judgement calls. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First you said that you were calm and now you say that you were irritated. That seems contradictory to me, Winkelvi. By the way, it should be obvious to all that I am commenting here as a fellow editor, not as an administrator. If you have any further concerns in that regard, please feel free to discuss the matter on my talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good lord. I said I was calm because I was, Cullen328. One can be irritated and calm. It may seem contradictory to you, but you are not me. Please don't project your emotions and reactions to things onto me. And just for the record, when one has the block button at their fingertips in Wikipedia, they are no longer just an editor. Too many bad blocks and bad behavior by admins with other admins supporting/excusing their bad blocks and bad behavior come hell or high water puts you all in the same bin. When an administrator steps into a discussion telling an editor to calm down and issues a warning to never do something, it has a chilling effect - kind of a PTSD dog whistle sort of thing. It shouldn't be that way, but the there are those who came before you that paved the way for such distrust, unfortunately. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not feel that critical, even sharp, observations of your nomination and subsequent defenses, your attacks on me, and use of logical fallacies in an argument, are themselves attacks. If you feel differently, then feel free to go off to whatever warning board is appropriate. You and the nominator in that talk page discussion were the sole objections to the removal of an overlong, cherry-picked quote in the BLP of a minor, who then moved on to this related article to try and get it deleted. You cite the "number of delete and merge votes", yet as I understand it, these are not votes but rather opinions that are weighed by an administrator at the end. Surely such a veteran editor knows that "votes" in a deletion discussion are not simply tallied, right? Many of the "delete per notnews" are inadequate and offer little in the way of an actual, tangible reason. In fact, you (the Wikipedia "you") have a guide that covers just that, WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Which, really, covers your IMO lacking nomination. Should we revisit that nomination?
  • WP:NOTNEWS. Does not fit any of the 4 criteria. It is not first-hand news, not routine news, 3 and 4 are not really applicable, IMO.
  • Article has no encyclopedic value on its own and basically amounts to a gossip piece. Subjective opinion, not relevant to much of anything.
  • essentially meets criteria for WP:COATRACK. Not seeing where the article runs afoul of this. It does not spend an inordinate amount of time criticizing Ingraham, it is tightly focused on the events at hand.
  • Could be merged.... That there is uncertainty on where to merge kinda speaks for the need of a standalone article. The event is bigger tan either person's biography, and diving into the necessary detail may run into WP:UNDUE issues. A standalone article alleviates that.
  • this minor event. A teenage shooting survivor is harangued by an established news personality, the teen figuratively snaps his fingers and two dozen advertisers poof into thin air. Not only is the boycott itself newsworthy, but also the sourced commentary regarding the influence of the shooting survivors in the wake of that tragedy.
But hey, I'm just a newbie who likes Doctor Who. TheValeyard (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have undone Winklevi's extemely bad-faith and disruptive hatting of the above. I have made valid, pointed, and detailed criticims of his nomination, and will not see this silenced and hidden from view.TheValeyard (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:XY, WP:RAPID, WP:DEADLINE. Renominate in a week. wumbolo ^^^ 11:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: The subject has received sustained news coverage for the past 15* days, with no signs of abating any time soon. Also, the article has been visited by more than 6000 readers.- MrX 🖋 18:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC), *updated: 13:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC) , 11:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC), 10:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC), 11:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC), 11:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS still very much applies. And it hasn't received sustained significant news coverage for the last ten days. That died down after day three. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is an incorrect and easily-debunked assertion. Bill Maher Comes to Laura Ingraham’s Defense Amid Ad Boycott: ‘Is That American?’, dated April 6 2018. You are also reminded, for a 2nd time, to stop hiding my relevant and policy-based critiques of your arguments above. TheValeyard (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TheValeyard: Mediaite isn't really a RS, it's a blog website. wumbolo ^^^ 19:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon, let's not be picky here. It's also in Newsweek. I only picked the 2nd one down, Mediate, because Newsweek's caption was in all-caps and I didn't want to post that and look yelly. TheValeyard (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No it doesn't. Yes it does. (In that order). There was coverage in multiple sources just a fews hours ago. Please don't base your arguments on false claims.- MrX 🖋 19:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The significant, continuous news coverage occurred a week ago and was over with as of Monday, April 2, 2018. See here Yahoo news regurgitating the same thing that was said a week ago isn't significant and it isn't continuous. Bill Maher mentioning Ingraham and the boycott isn't significant, continuous coverage, either. It's a mention. WP:NOTNEWS still very much applies. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A simple Google search reveals that to be false.- MrX 🖋 19:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A web search was included in my previous comments. You are free to claim it's untrue, and free to believe it, but doing so doesn't make the reality change or go away. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know anyone used yahoo anymore. :) But seriously, several sources have noted Maher's defense of Ingraham, you can't just handwave that away. It happened yesterday, and shows the story is still ongoing. Multiple sources also note that the "vacation" is almost up, such as the AP story carried by Time] and ABC. That is from today, and shows the story is still ongoing. TheValeyard (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX: you can stop updating how many pageviews this article gets as it doesn't affect whether it should be kept. wumbolo ^^^ 12:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion Wumbolo, but I decline. Page views are a measure of reader interest, and an important indication of whether a subject is notable.- MrX 🖋 12:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MrX: could this more explicitly prove you wrong? Not a policy/guideline but still... WP:POPULARPAGE... wumbolo ^^^ 12:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's an essay. It represents the view of one editor, who added it without discussion. Many editors disagree with parts of that essay, including the counterintuitive assertions about page view stats.- MrX 🖋 12:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not news about news It's analysis of advertising. It's in the news, but so are many things. The various articles, shows and opinion pieces focused on one thing are what makes coverage "significant". That said, I don't care whether we keep or delete it. Pick one for me. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per clear consensus and reasons already stated (disregarding socks). Secondary sense (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)— Secondary sense (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Was not convinced last week, but this story has shown to have legs over the weekend with continuing coverage. There's a particular uptick today as her show, supposedly, is returning tonight. ValarianB (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ValarianB: please ignore this uptick as it is a lot of speculation and doesn't affect notability much. Let's see how it goes. Even then, we should wait a bit to see if today's episode would be notable. wumbolo ^^^ 12:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wumblo, don't ping me with suggestions to "ignore" something, it's belittling and unwanted. Speculative or not, when a dozen-ish reliable sources are all on the "she's back tonight!" train, that is notable, and an example of sustained coverage. ValarianB (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ValarianB, the story doesn't have legs, it gained a vestigial pinky toe. Repeated stories about Ingraham returning to the air tonight is not continuing coverage, it's regurgitation of something that's nothing more than a big, "Well, duh!". -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating a canard doesn't make it true, Winklevi. Read WP:BLUDGEON when you have a moment. ValarianB (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well-acquainted with WP:BLUDGEON. (1) It's an essay, not policy. Learn the difference. (2) In that essay, there's nothing that states editors should not call out bullshit, misrepresentations, and hyperbole regarding sources. Accurate sourcing is at the heart of Wikipedia content contribution -- if editors start claiming sources are verifying something they aren't, it needs to be pointed out. (3) None of my comments in this AfD equate bludgeoning. I suggest you read WP:FOC. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a essay that you'd do well to understand. I'm sorry that the continued, sustained coverage in the cited sources is disrupting your fraudulent talking points, but that's your problem to deal with, not mine. Allstate Quietly Drops Laura Ingraham in Internal Memo to Employees (April 10, 2018). Amid ad boycott, Laura Ingraham says she won't be silenced by 'the left' (April 10, 2018). ValarianB (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Wrap is a Hollywood blog/gossip site - in other words, it's an unreliable source and cannot be used for referencing. Why would you try to cite it here? CNN Money is, of course, a reliable source, however, their mention is in regard to Ingraham's show last night. In which she didn't once mention David Hogg or the "boycott". She was talking about free speech and efforts to silence Conservative voices. Which everyone should have a problem with, but still has nothing to do with the article up for deletion here. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Wrap is already being used as a source in the article, my dear uninformed one, as a source for Allstate's withdrawal. There's nothing uncontroversial about that fact, it isn't salacious gossip, it is just reporting their withdrawal, SF Gate has picked up their story as well. Your efforts to bludgeon this discussion and undermine the topic are transparent, and have not done a thing to gainsay the work editors like Mir. X and others have put into the article. ValarianB (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for alerting me to the presence of a wholly unreliable source in an article that falls under BLP guidelines. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Wrap is indeed a reliable news source, as indicated by being cited by other reliable news sources. See WP:USEBYOTHERS and WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 149#The Wrap (thewrap.com).- MrX 🖋 16:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Winklevi, thanks for making a pointy, disruptive edit. Glad to see that it has already been reversed. ValarianB (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Wrap is a Hollywood blog site, their writers are referred to as "Hollybloggers" Definitely not a reliable source. My removal of The Wrap as a reference was not pointy, and it was most certainly appropriate. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then you may take that point up with the reliable source board. Or take it up with USA Today, unquestionably a reliable source, that cited The Wrap in its own news article. Edit-warring though, will lead to a bad end. ValarianB (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ValarianB: please read WP:BURDEN - the burden is on the person who wants to include material, not the other way around. wumbolo ^^^ 18:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wumblo:, you never followed up on your previous response, so forgive me if I do not place much faith in your argument this time, either. The material is cited to a source that has passed muster on the RSN already, thus the edit-warrior above owns the burden as to why the source should not be used in this situation. All it is a citation for is Allstate dropping its advertising on Ingraham's show. Not a controversial claim, not a spectacular claim or BLP-related issue; it's just a fact. A fact that USA Today has noted as well. ValarianB (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Trackinfo, Ingraham has taken a week off from her radio show around spring break and/or Easter for years, now that she has a prime time television program, her spring time off schedule is still part of her annual routine. There was no "programming change". She's a devout Catholic, and took time off for one of the holiest seasons in Catholicism. That it happened right after Hogg's call for a "boycott" is merely coincidence. She has three children, is a single parent, and did what she always does this time of year: vacation with her children. You're reading something into nothing. Which is WP:SYNTH and unverifiable. Are you sure you want to base your !vote on something that couldn't go into the article because it's against policy to do so? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Winkelvi there are many sources describing the whole vacation after the media brouhaha as dubious and questionable such as this one. It's not WP:SYNTH. Whether the vacation was pre-planned or not, it sure worked to get Ingraham out of the spotlight.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're joking, but fear you aren't, Tomwsulcer. The Wrap is not a reliable source (why, in God's name, are you even quoting it?) - it's a blog site. The contributors there are referred to "Hollybloggers". Beyond that, if any reliable source claims her vacation was "dubious", then they should turn in their press credentials. Why? Because stating such is not based on anything other than assumption, supposition, and facts not in evidence. In other words: it's POV gossip. Here is some real evidence for you: Did she take a vacation from her radio show last week? Yep, she did. As she stated on Good Friday, her vacation was a pre-planned, week-long absence. She's been doing it for years in regard to her radio show - now she has a primetime cable news show, so she took a vacation from that, too. Big, freaking, deal. If it was all a FOX News plot to get her "out of the spotlight" from the television program, she wouldn't have disappeared suddenly from her radio show, either (the radio show is not FOX affiliated). "Dubious"? Ugh. If you're going to be a Wikipedia editor who is supposed to be neutral in your contributions, please act like one when it comes to how you view/understand sourcing and in how you !vote. That's the responsible thing to do. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, pre-planned just like O'Reilly's was planned, right? Comparisons are being drawn by sources between the two. Your own bias is showing as well, Wink, your contributions to this discussion have been decidedly right-wing. TheValeyard (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My contributions to this discussion have been nothing less than in favor of verifiable content, accuracy, NPOV, encyclopedia-worthy articles and content. For your information (not that it's anyone's business in this internet environment among strangers), but I'm not "right-wing". I'm a fan of what's right and what's appropriate content-wise -- nothing more, nothing less. Kindly keep your misconceptions and assumptions about my political views out of any discussions we may have from now on. You also might want to read WP:FOC. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm agreeing with Valeyard; can we kindly keep assumptions out?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While Ingraham's quickly announced vacation does match the pattern when Bill O'Reilly fell in disfavor, I was actually referring to the advertiser pullout by some 25 notable companies (content that was inadvertently removed here. That a suggestion in a Tweet from a teenager can cause that tide of action shows the clear notability of this subject. If I were to tweet out a proposed boycott of someone or something I dislike, well, first I would need to get a Twitter account, but still, nobody would care and nothing would happen. Trackinfo (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with this and other merge suggestions is that you're calling for content to be duplicated into separate articles. The reader wishes to view this subject matter, do they go to Hogg's bio, or Ingraham's? Assuming for a moment that "merge" is the consensus close of this discussion, will the once-identical content stray over time as different editors have an interest in the 2 articles? IMO the fact that there's two viable entities involved in this conflict speaks to the necessity of a standalone article. A standalone would also eliminate the concern of overburdening either biography with a controversy, i.e. WP:UNDUE. ValarianB (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mainly because this article is longer and better referenced than the one about The Ingraham Angle, merging it would either give more weight to the boycott than to the show itself, or would result in losing well written and referenced data. --GRuban (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ingraham Angle article; UNDUE problems can be reduced by improving the rest of that article's text and/or reducing the bloat and excesses of the merged text. --Jayron32 00:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge Per so many of the comments above. Notnews, recentism and really it can just be merged into the Ingraham and Hogg articles. Springee (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the boycott of a US TV show is being discussed in Canadian news for pete sake. The page now has 26 good references. Arguably the boycott is more notable than the show based on the amount of RS discussing it. It's not a one day event. It's not just routine news. It's not a failure because the program's advertising dropped a lot. It's also not ok for the OP to bludgeon every editor that opposes deleting page - and if the OP replies to me too I'll remove their post. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac: good luck, read WP:TPO. wumbolo ^^^ 17:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Winkelvi: you do appear to be BLUDGEONing. You've made your position quite clear, now please stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Winkelvi's bludgeon cracked my crystal ball!--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I'm not bludgeoning if MrX and the sock accounts and sockmaster Valarian aren't. Call them out for the same thing, and I might take your comment seriously, BMK. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Asked not to reply to me - fail. Asked not to bludgen - fail. Mocking BMK - fail again. Legacypac (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Winkelvi: Accusing someone of being a "sockmaster" without presenting evidence is a violation of WP:Casting aspersions. This is a warning: if you do it again, it goes right to AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell are you talking about? ValarianB was blocked for being a sockmaster - his sock was TheValeyard. I'm not casting aspersions against anyone, it's an SPI fact. Look into it. Or go to AN/I and look silly. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And BTW, if anyone else is BLUDGEONing, stop. And Winkelvi, a word to the wise: if you don't want to get ticketed for speeding more then the average person, don't drive a red car. If you don't want to stand out in a crowd of Wikipedians, make your sig match everyone else's. As long as you have a distinctive sig, it's going to be easier to see your activities on a crowded page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have I said anything more to anyone about anything related to this AfD or their !vote since bludgeoning was brought up? No, I have not. I'm not in the least bit interested in fighting with you, BMK. Please just drop it, okay? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didnot know that about ValerianB, so I apologize for that remark, and I'm striking it out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't seem to be a short news cycle story: did not IBM and Red Lobster just pull out? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2028 will this article seem like a good idea? No. "Just wait and see. Remember, there is no deadline..." WP:10YT – Lionel(talk) 00:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. – Lionel(talk) 08:51, 12 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 Arts Club of Washington. Courcelles (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marfield Prize[edit]

Marfield Prize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The few hits on this minor award are all either press releases or trivial mentions. Does not have enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 17:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment perhaps you missed this and this? Queen-washington (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - nope, saw them both. The second is simply a press release put out by the organization. And the first is little better. Artnet doesn't publish their editorial guidelines, so whether or not they are a reliable source is also debatable. Onel5969 TT me 00:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Prize itself has not attracted articles in the national mass media. That's not surprising: the Prize addresses a specialized community of readers of art criticism and history. There are numerous articles noting it in specialized magazines such as Artforum, Scene4, and pif Magazine. The prize itself is sufficiently respected that it is very widely noted in the references to the authors and works that have received it, including the national media (Washington Post, Huffington Post, Publishers Weekly), respected presses (Princeton), university lectures, etc.. There are 2000 such hits on Google to sort through. My opinion is that the notability of the Marfield Prize is more than adequate for inclusion in Wikipedia. With that said, the present article is still a list, not an article, and doesn't begin to address the notability of its subject. So I think a reasonable path here is to tag the article to indicate that the notability of the subject is not established. It was probably unwise for the list to be broken out of the Arts Club article, where it was sitting happily for some time. However, deletion of the article on the grounds that its subject is not notable is also (in my opinion) unwise. Easchiff (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is an unwise spin out from Arts Club of Washington, the information is already there in history, so there is nothing to merge. Szzuk (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge it back. Szzuk (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Arts Club of Washington, which presently lacks this content in the article itself. North America1000 02:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Happy if it's merged back, and [[Marfield Prize]] returns to being a redirect. Easchiff (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Flynn[edit]

Dean Flynn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently it does not satisfy WP: PORNBIO. Just only one not remarkable prize. Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:37, 6 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. Courcelles (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Velgarth[edit]

Velgarth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A very long article sourced entirely from the content of the books it references. In many cases the wiki-links in the article are themselves recursive. This is WP:OR at its best or worst. There are already articles about the individual books and the author and this is just a (very extended) synthesis derived from the content of those books. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   14:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support: It is certainly discouraging that the article's been tagged since 2010 and very little seems to have changed to satisfy concerns about the subject as being notable in its own right. I'm forced to agree with the nominator that it presently appears better suited to a wikia than to its own article here. DonIago (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 16:32, 5 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. —SpacemanSpiff 13:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vaniya Nair/Vaniya chettiar[edit]

Vaniya Nair/Vaniya chettiar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creator included evidence for Vaniya nair caste in malabar in reference section,Vaniya nair is mentioned in "Letters From Malabar : Jacob Canter Visscher" as one of the caste engaged in traditional works in malabar region.A simple google search of word' vaniya nair' gave results of matrimonial sites exclussively dedicated to this specific caste- http://vaniyamarriagebureau.com/about.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.201.6.90 (talk • contribs) — 88.201.6.90 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Could you log back in please, before posting here? The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi sir, I have now included various sources as reference , Please pardon my mistake of deleting the proposal of deletion and maintaince templates as I'm not very much familiar with wikipedia usage🙏 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satvikgeetha (talk • contribs)
Hello mighty glen,
I have added several referances now,Are those enough for the article to not to get deleted? Or should i add more?
Cheers Satvikgeetha (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poorly-sourced article with no indication of notability. Vaniya Chettiar already exists, and Google Books/News throw up zero results for "Vaniya Nair". Google Scholar has [8] - an unpublished thesis with trivial mentions. The sources cited in the article are not adequate either. [9] - Trivial mention of "Vaniya Nair" - not enough to establish notability; the source doesn't mention that it's a "sub-caste". [10] - Mentions the term "Vaniya Chettiar", on which an article already exists; also a weebly page is not a reliable source. The creator states that [11] mentions the term, but I couldn't find it -- added a 'page number needed' tag. The following sources don't mention the terms "Vaniya Nair" and "Vaniya Chettiar": [12][13][14][15][16] (and most of these don't pass WP:RS guidelines). utcursch | talk 00:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 16:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - what ^^ utcursch ^^ says. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Shelatkar[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rohit Shelatkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Personally I think this is completely bureaucratic to go through this again so soon when nothing has changed: the subject is still not notable and fails WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. WP:G4 is only for "sufficiently identical copies" and it "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". The previous version (deleted after discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rohit Shelatkar) made no mention of a film career as this one does, which is why I declined The G4 nomination. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete typical paid editing effort with ref padding (multiple churnalism refs from same press release, SPS, puff pieces, passing mentions, etc). Fails BIO. Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:38, 6 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. —SpacemanSpiff 13:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shyamal K Mishra[edit]

Shyamal K Mishra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet notable per WP:FILMMAKER or WP:BIO. So far he's been assistant director or co-director of a few low-notability films, and WP:Notability is not inherited. He's the director of a new, as-yet unreleased film of unknown notability. For his work to date, I don't see any significant coverage online in WP:RS. Photo in article was uploaded by article creator as "own work", suggesting a conflict of interest. At best, WP:TOOSOON. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Concur with The Mighty Glen, nothing in article to support meeting notability at this point, nothing in a google search to suggest meeting notability. Add in the fairly obvious COI, and this should be deleted. Ravensfire (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete independent dedicated coverage not found in third party reliable sources... work done is also mostly non notable... article text is written like personal blog -- Adamstraw99 (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 15:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear administrators and editor
Shyamal K Mishra Wikipedia's article is not person blog because Shyamal K Mishra have already many External links and websites .He is notable person of indian film director .His movie Krina (film) will release soon and Shyamal K Mishra article page have any issues i am requesting u that pls fix it and remove from Afd list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishi Kumar Maurya (talk • contribs) 16:44, 5 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandros Chapsiadis[edit]

Alexandros Chapsiadis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely no case for notability under WP:PROF ! Mathchecker (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Just a random scholar, not even a hint for notability in the article Wikitigresito (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Entirely "unnotable" as scientist, or academic. ——Chalk19 (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The grand total of a single publication, with no citations. Does not pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Publication and citation record far short of WP:PROF#C1, with no other evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - User:David Eppstein considered CSD in 2013, but decided to conservatively tag the article for problems in 2013.[17] I don't find any sources not currently in the article, and agree the article is not encyclopedic. Smmurphy(Talk) 14:34, 10 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 moved to Draft:Bekir Brunčević. MT TrainTalk 07:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bekir Brunčević[edit]

Bekir Brunčević (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, Serbian-language BLP of seemingly non-notable football player. Article has been deleted multiple times of the Serbian Wikipedia. PROD and Not English tags removed by article creator. Madg2011 (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article is in a foreign language, and should not, therefore, be in the English Wikipedia. Vorbee (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had tagged it as needing translation from Serbian but the tag was removed by the article creator (along with a BLP PROD tag). Taking it to AfD seemed like the best way of dealing with it. Madg2011 (talk) 15:19, 5 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aneta Bogdan[edit]

Aneta Bogdan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

By all appearances, this is a person with an interesting career like millions of others, but hardly worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Let's go through the sources.

    • The reason why most of these references don't mention the subject is because they reference instead to Bogdan's company, through which she carried out her work. The Chartered Marketer reference is a database of people who hold that title, you need to search for the subject's name. And the reference about Vodafone's acquisition of Connex supports that exact statement. Please note that one reference is a video from the archive of the Romanian National Television, from the cultural TV show 'Garantat 100%', where Bogdan was invited in 2011. Onethreefour134 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then, what are her accomplishments? She:

So again, I suppose the subject is fairly successful at what she does, but nothing here really stands out, and besides, such coverage as exists is mainly in the form of passing mentions. - Biruitorul Talk 15:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete: I tried to find the 2018 English translation of her book, but it's not in WorldCat, Copac or Amazon. A publisher and an ISBN would help. If that had a couple of reviews in WP:RS we'd be starting to get some notability. As it stands ... nothing much here, sadly. PamD 08:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for pointing this out, I have added the ISBN codes to both books (RO and EN) and will check for reviews. Onethreefour134 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here is an example of in-depth discussion about Aneta (as a person) which I added to the article. [18] She has also been called the most powerful woman in Romania [19] and one of the 100 most powerful women in the world[20] by Business Magazine. Combined with the sources that were already there, I think that's enough to pass WP:GNG for significant discussion in secondary sources. I think being called the most powerful woman in Romania is evidence for notability, too. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a technical comment: "cele mai puternice femei din România" means "the most powerful women in Romania". That article was run by a business magazine profiling the country's 200 most powerful businesswomen, excluding other domains were women are powerful, such as politics or entertainment.
    • Now, perhaps the subject is a "powerful woman". But nobody has called her "the most powerful woman in Romania", because that would be slightly absurd. - Biruitorul Talk 04:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made amends to your statement, Lonehexagon, the reference is about including the subject in top 100 most powerful business women in 2012, by local news source Business Magazin Onethreefour134 (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like this fails WP:GNG. The supposed notability of the enterprise doesn't quite translate to her, so most of the sources not mentioning her are chaff -- supposing they are relevant, they could be used in reference to the corporate entity, if anyone's really suggesting it's notable. The rest of the sources appear to be one-time mentions, and some are just puff-pieces in publications with no particular standing; others, such as FRF links, are not independent of the subject (the entity she rebranded reported on being rebranded). Her most solid claim to personal fame is a one-time inclusion as one of the 200 (not top ten or anything like that) most powerful (whatever that means) women in business for a rather small country (ell no, not "the world", at least read the sources you're using!) with an even smaller market by the editors of a magazine that is itself of dubious journalistic credentials (what's to say Business Magazin is a WP:RS?). Revista Tango is a gossip and lifestyle magazine, not some journalistic powerhouse; its coverage and especially its interviews are not necessarily proof of notability. As for AdHugger: that's not even PR, it a creator of spam. Dahn (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a side note, @Onethreefour134: Please stop cutting into other people's comments. If you have to reply to every comment, do so in one paragraph, and outside the body of text you're replying to. Dahn (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing in here that adequately addresses WP:BIO criteria.
  • Keep I believe the subject meets the WP:NG criteria. She has written a best seller book in Romania. I found citations of it in academic publications as well as inclusion in the bibliography of some academic environments, and added them to the article's references. The book was recently launched in its international (English) edition. She is notable in her field of work and considered a pioneer of the branding discipline in Romania. This is supported by the fact that in the past 15 years she has been the advisor to either the creation or rebranding of a quarter of the 50 most valuable Romanian brands (Brand Finance report 2017). And through her company, she has advised on the development of more than 100 new brands (these were included in dedicated book in 2010). Since then, a more recent reference mentions over 200 brands). She is the founder of the biggest brand and design company in Romania, which can also be considered notable given the international design awards it has received and the inclusion in the top 25 most reputable design companies world wide (by industry authority Rebrand). Also, the article follows the WP:RS criteria. The subject is significantly covered in the media, from TV shows to interviews and opinion pieces, in reliable and verifiable sources (Romanian National Television, established news organisations in Romania: Wall Street, Forbes, Jurnalul, Adevarul, Digi24, Business Review etc.). I have looked for replacements of some of the previously challenged Romanian references. But I would advise some precaution and double-checking before dismissing some of the international references, some are established in the industry of the subject (i.e. Underconsideration is a long time running opinion platform by designer Armin Vit, you can find him and the website referenced in many other wiki pages about creative professionals, i.e. Wally Ollins). Onethreefour134 (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see a straight split between "keep" and "delete" - more input requested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:05, 5 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. Again. A merge may be reasonable, but one of the talkpages is the place for it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alien language[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Alien language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Except for the single item in the Inherent difficulties section, this is redundant with the info in article Alien language in science fiction. Suggest merge. RobP (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Merger is different from deletion. See WP:ATD-M. @Rp2006, would you like to withdraw this deletion discussion and suggest the merge on the article's talk page? Cnilep (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWhile no "alien languages" exist that we know of, it is apperently a theoretical topic which has gotten enough academic attention... there are sufficient sources to warrant this as it's own article and a merger with alien languages in sci-fi wouldn't work, this has nothing to do with that topic. Ps there was a strong concensus to keep the last two AFD's what has changed about the article or wiki policies to look at this again?Sethie (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So it is acceptable to just keep an article that is nearly as old as Wikipedia itself and still has not been updated to include any of the supposedly notable sources available? Indefinitely? Again, this article mostly concerns just the sci-fi aspect of the topic - which already has its own article. Why is that acceptable? I have deleted anything not applicable to the stated subject of this article now. I think this highlights how thin it actually is. RobP (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Sethie. 92.2.70.144 (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Sethie. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The editor who nominated this article for deletion has removed some of the strongest sourced material, which emphasize the academic and scholarly angle of this topc, with what seems to me inaccurate and misleading edit summary.... strongly request the admin who closes the AFD, to look at it's state before these edits. Sethie (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC) went ahead and fixed this issue.Sethie (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated directly above, "I have deleted anything not applicable to the stated subject of this article now. I think this highlights how thin it actually is. "What I deleted was all the SciFi material which belongs in the other article, Alien language in science fiction. So, Sethie, you may have just made my point. Indead - that was "some of the strongest sourced material" here. Not much left other than the SciFi angle. RobP (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Niche insurance. (WP:SNOW close). North America1000 02:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alien abduction insurance[edit]

Alien abduction insurance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems extremely week to have its own article. Suggest adding info to main Alien abduction article if appropriate. RobP (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I like the idea above. There are also categories here that we may want to be careful of. IF I recall an insurance company can insure almost ANYTHING as long as the policy holder is willing to pay a premium. There are insurance policies against attacks from Zombies, the Loch Ness Monster, Chemo treatments for your pet which includes goldfish (cancer recovery for your goldfish, who knew?), Alien Abduction, which can go as high as 10 million for abduction and property damage etc etc. Perhaps a no limits section on what can be insured? Former super model Cheryl Tiegs had at one point insured her legs at Lloyds of London for a few million. I say hell yes, put it all in there. Certainly I MUST KNOW these things, dont you? I also found this link: https://www.bankrate.com/finance/insurance/world-s-biggest-insurer-takes-on-all-risks.aspx hmmm. Unicorn attacks, big foot attacks,hauntings etc etc Coal town guy (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I would say merging with Niche Insurance as suggested by The Mighty Glen is the most logical target, unless we have another "odd insurance" article somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 15:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Niche Insurance. Sourcing is perhaps a bit thin for its own article (most sources are passing mentions). Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge even though niche insurance is a stub also. OMG David Lee Roth has penis insurance? The things I learn on Wikipedia.Sgerbic (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - per The Mighty Glen. John from Idegon (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Article content suppressed. ~ GB fan 11:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vuk Lakić[edit]

Vuk Lakić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability established. Non-English language. Dial911 (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
thanks Kudpung, Coolabahapple (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLPPROD: as it stands now, it is a wholly unscourced BLP. --HyperGaruda (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For heaven's sake, why is this not either WP:G3 or WP:A7? He's 11. The article claims he's a player for FK Slavija Sarajevo. Either this is a hoax, or he's a player on this children's league that's perhaps associated with the grown-up team, one whose best achievement is "player of the match", hardly a credible claim of significance. Largoplazo (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in accord with my comment immediately above. Largoplazo (talk) 17:00, 10 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. MBisanz talk 13:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Ma[edit]

Snow Ma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has already been speedily deleted, so hopefully an AfD will stop it being recreated yet again. Can find nothing in English language sources about this person. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 11:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 11:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 11:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Timmyshin. Curiously, I started that AfD too. But its was back in October, so have no recollection of what was in the article. Edwardx (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Me neither. But I vaguely remember the name (Xue = Snow in Chinese). Timmyshin (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox states, "Born: mǎ xuě". Edwardx (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, i opened some of the refs and translated them, it is Xue Ma, she appears to be an ordinary person and notability isn't established. Szzuk (talk) 18:12, 10 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. MBisanz talk 13:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Animal Biotechnology[edit]

Institute of Animal Biotechnology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I redirected this to the parent article in November.[21] This was reverted by Think O Lantern almost immediately.[22] We had a discussion over this at our talk pages (User talk:Think O Lantern#Institute of Animal Biotechnology and User talk:Aircorn/Archive 8#Institute of Animal Biotechnology). Lfstevens (talk · contribs) has done a good job copy editing it, but the only source is still a link to the universities webpage. There is nothing remarkable about this institute that I can find[23] and being a Institute of a Faculty of a University in a very small country I doubt it reaches our definition of notability. I did consider a merge, but I don't like to merge uncited material into another article as I feel responsible for the content. It would also be WP:Undue to have so much information about this institute. I feel a redirect to Faculty of Agricultural Science and Food in Skopje is sufficient as it is a potential search term and is already listed at the target article. AIRcorn (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC) AIRcorn (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are no refs in this article and 2 external links that don't establish notability. The proposed alternate redirect target shouldn't be pursued because there are many of these institutes around the world. A merge shouldn't be pursued because the information in the article isn't encyclopedic, it is mundane. Szzuk (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, suggest a third relist, the discussion has been on going for months so another week shouldn't be a problem. Szzuk (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even after a month of discussing it, there are zero references in the article, and none suggested here. I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect per WP:AFD, but the title is so generic, it's almost pointless. I suppose we could start with the redirect as as other similarly named institutes become known, turn it into a WP:DAB page if necessary. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1 – The nomination is only proposing a merge. I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America1000 13:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Engineering Management Bialystok University of Technology[edit]

Faculty of Engineering Management Bialystok University of Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge with Bialystok University of Technology, not seeing any independent notability. Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 5 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 List of media set within one day. Clearly duplicative. It's up to editors to decide which should be merged to which. Sandstein 06:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of works set in a single day[edit]

List of works set in a single day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplicate of List of media set within one day. Only nominating at AfD because a previous PROD was declined here by Fayenatic london. wumbolo ^^^ 15:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note there is related Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_29#Day_in_the_life_of, proposing to delete or change the redirect Day in the life of (previous name of this article, a redirect since 2014 move). --Doncram (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge + redirect This list dates from 2006 while the other one was created in 2012 after a CfD. Unfortunately, neither list has sources, but the latter has a "further reading" section. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [was "Merge"], per LaundryPizza03, to reward the better sourced one of the two, keeping the edit contributions within the redirect left behind. Besides the duplication, this seems like a very valid topic for a list. There ought to be a corresponding category or two, e.g. Category:Novels set within one day and Category:Films set within one day, or all in Category:Media set within one day.
Agar plates which no doubt set within one day
Actually, Keeping the older (2006) list-article and merging/redirecting the 2012 list-article is technically better, giving more prominent/accessible/proper credit to the oldest contributors. Still needs to be renamed after the AFD, but Keep is the proper AFD decision. --Doncram (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The naming could be better. Frankly the label "media set within one day" is opaque to me. (What is a "media set"? Do you mean agar and other laboratory culture media, and by setting you mean it is supposed to firm up like jello?) How about "Literary works and films set within one day", does that cover everything? I think it does. Renaming can be suggested to be implemented following close of this AFD, by any editor or by a formal wp:RM process. --Doncram (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) ::@Doncram: Actually, per this, the other article was created because the categories were ruled inappropriate. This may have edit history, but it is unsourced... wumbolo ^^^ 20:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, it's obvious to me that corresponding categories make sense, and these would be consistent with wp:CLT guideline about corresponding list-articles, categories, navigation templates. You can have all three. --Doncram (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I set up Category:Novels set in one day with redirect from a wording variation, am not encountering any notices about a category having been deleted. Really seems obviously sensible, no reason not to have this AFAICT. Whatever other categories were deleted should perhaps be recreated. Please link to any wp:CFD about the categories. [ I see that you did.] --Doncram (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it more, what is worth covering is big works like whole novels and whole TV series set within just one day. Where it is remarkable that all that happens within 24 hours. There are zillions of short stories and short films and so on about single events, where there is nothing special at all about it not covering more than a day. Would every separate episode of a TV talk show count as a work? What about the Seinfeld episode about waiting for a table at a Chinese restaurant. There is nothing special about that not requiring a full day. How about every film covering a track meet or a soccer match... I would hope we want just fictional works, not non-fiction. And for the list and corresponding categories to be sensible for Wikipedia coverage, the 24 hour duration needs to be specifically a notable characteristic about the work, IMHO, so "Novels set within one day" is valid while "Short stories set within one day" is not. --Doncram (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, per the previous CFD, what was at issue for films set within one day, was that it seemed to some to be a "Non-defining and trivial characteristic". Well, the answer to the problem is that the categories and list-article need to be about films and novels where the 24 hour limitation is in fact defining and non-trivial. So the TV series 24. And One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. The intro to this list-article and an intro in each category need to clearly state that. This will then easily stand up to any potential criticism. --Doncram (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The previous CFD was good in identifying that a list-article would be appropriate, but was bizarre and mistaken in deciding to delete the category. There exists better wide understanding of complementary roles of these now; that CFD wouldn't conclude that way nowadays, IMHO. Per wp:CLT, a list-article is great for discussing the overall topic, for including sources and photos and red-links for notable examples not yet having articles. The corresponding categories are complementary, and, among other functions, provide for navigation by readers to the list-article and its learned discussion, and to other examples which quite likely will be of interest. Like for one participant in the previous CFD who commented they were going to seek out more film examples like Breakfast Club to go and see, once they saw that there were such other examples to the one or two they knew about. --Doncram (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Fayenatic london: Is there anything specific about this article that you would want preserved? All articles listed here are listed there. wumbolo ^^^ 21:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: the edit history of the page should be preserved. Deletion would mean that only admins can see it. If there is no current content or parent category that has not already been added to the other page, then it is simply a matter of redirecting. – Fayenatic London 21:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: there is no imperative to merge, WP:REDUNDANTFORK is a guideline, not a policy. wumbolo ^^^ 21:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: Template:R with history says that it should only be used if the page history is substantial and meaningful. Since we don't have anything to merge, why should we live a redirect behind? wumbolo ^^^ 22:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "List of works set in a single day" article was created in 2007 as Day in the life of and long started out "Day in the life of is a device often used in fiction, such as books films, plays and television series, showing the events that happen to the character over a day." That was long ago. The GPL license under which the original contributions were made gives us obligation (and we simply want) to credit the contributors by their edit history being preserved. The topic is re-affirmed to be valid. There is no reason to wipe out their identifying and developing the topic. The newer other list also has contribution history. There is no need to entirely delete its history either.
I prefer to "Keep" the works lists and merge the "media" list, more prominently recognizing its original contributors up to and including Fayenatic london who developed and moved it from the "Day in the life of" name. The AFD participants and contributors to the newer "media" list screwed up in effect by their creating a duplicative list-article, if not a content fork; they were wrong and the original "works" contributors were right.
The newer "media" list has existed as a mere list of links with no explanation and no sources for any items, although it did receive some good contributions of some review articles best 10, best 30 etc. in its "further reading" section which should be moved over.
The original "works" list has been developed some, continuing now with edits by User:Clarityfiend (and by me clarifying up front that it is only to cover defining and non-trivial cases) today, with some description/context provided for some or all its items. It has the better title and development and sources and the longer edit history.
It doesn't really really matter which gets merged to the other, I will grant, but the principle of the older one being kept is a pretty strong one, IMHO. We shouldn't let new creations usurp the older ones willy-nilly. All the participants in the CFD were wrong, in effect, to allow that to happen. --Doncram (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am agreeable to having the naming use "in a single day" rather than "within one day" or, hmm, you are preferring the other way around. Either is probably better than "in a day", sure. And I agree "work" is better than "media". These are aspects of best naming, not about the AFD which is to be closed as Keep or Merge depending upon which one of two lists should be the merger target from the other. --Doncram (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think Run Lola Run and Groundhog Day should be covered in List of time loop films [was a redlink, now is a redirect to pre-existing list-article] or the like. They are in Category:Time loop films which is way more defining about them. RLR is about 20 minutes replayed 3 times, not about a whole day. GD is one day replayed many many times, sort of, but it also goes into the next day. It is sort of the opposite of a "limited to 24 hours" film! --Doncram (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Run Lola Run isn't a time loop film, it's simply three separate scenarios, so I've removed that category. Groundhog Day is sort of a weird case. It does, now that you mention it, make it to the next day, but it's so ummm intensely "one-dayish"; the Salon writer thinks so too. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is a tangent. It's fine by me if you keep RLR in "single day" category, but don't remove it from "time loop" category....please continue about that at Talk:Run Lola Run#Time loop film category. --Doncram (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: for your information, this is the list article for time loop films. wumbolo ^^^ 17:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks! And that is a good example for this page...includes table arrangement, short blurb with source for each one listed. There, I don't think it is as much an issue about whether the items belong. For this, sourcing and perhaps explicit quotes could perhaps more focused to supporting one-day-ness being important. At least if anyone is challenging the inclusion of any given item in the list. Again, thanks! --Doncram (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:LISTN. Andrew D. (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This AfD has been listed at the Article Rescue Squad list, where I saw it. I don't have a strong opinion about it, but I don't see a serious problem with keeping it. My first reaction was to make it a category, so I was surprised to see that previous categories were rejected at CfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not the place for a merge discussion. Nominated should've just started a merge discussion since two list articles are basically the same, not wasted time with a deletion discussion. Can argue over which list to keep and which to merge and what to rename later on. Dream Focus 00:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, and be more careful The Kramer article apparently contains errors, and we take it at face value; Groundhog Day is primarily set during one recurring day, but opens and closes on clearly different days, and arguably doesn't fit the criteria anyway as it is set over the course of several years that just happen to be repeating. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as proposed. I have created Day in the life (genre), as there is clearly a genre able to be reliably sourced here worth discussing distinct from any list of representative works. bd2412 T 23:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of media set within one day. I like the idea of this list, but clearly the two duplicate each other. Work out the details of the merge and the best title on the article talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 13 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. MBisanz talk 13:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moonlight Serenade (radio program)[edit]

Moonlight Serenade (radio program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable radio program. Doesn't pass the general notability guideline. It is lacking of significant coverage in reliable sources.

Also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No difference from the many other overnight music shows that have the same format, and reads as both an WP:ADVERT and extreme fancruft about a late-night music show. Nate • (chatter) 04:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Robertson (ice hockey)[edit]

Jason Robertson (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet notable athlete who doesn't meet the criteria at WP:NHOCKEY. Ho-ju-96 (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:15, 5 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rice Hooe[edit]

Rice Hooe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks evidence of notability, fails WP:V. Almost all WP:OR from WP:PRIMARY sources. The only secondary source cited is self-published and only makes passing mention. Agricolae (talk) 03:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak DeleteWeak Keep - Fails no original research and verifiability (also, without reliable sources, represents a non-neutral POV)). The subject may be encyclopedic, I find some results on google books, but I don't find this article to make for a foundation of an encyclopedia article. I'd be willing to change my !vote if someone cleaned out the OR and found some reliable sources. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck/changed my !vote. I've stubbified the article along the lines of the suggestion of the IP (24.151.116.12). Smmurphy(Talk) 17:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I do not know enough to vote, but there is enough biographical detail to suggest this is not invention, which is what OR often implies. "Naval Officer" was a colonial customs official. I suspect that this does have adequate sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that this is 'just some guy' and the creator has dug through the primary record to write an essay on the man, taking every passing reference and blowing it all out of proportion - it is the kind of personal compilation that a genealogist or local historian puts together on their favorite ancestor, who has not received any actual coverage in secondary sources beyond the occasional mention of their name. Let's take a look at three of the footnotes:
  • Ref.4 is to "Capt John Rice Hooe - Navel Officer and Trader Patent to Ocaneechi signed his name as Rice Hooe. Citing "Index: H." Calendar of State Papers Colonial, America and West Indies". This is almost verbatim from a blog [25], and is 'through-citing' - not citing the blog itself, but pretending to have consulted the blog's source. I say 'pretending' because the named source is actually the part of a book's index that covers the letter H! Further, if you look in the book, it says nothing in either the index nor the pages it indexes[26][27] about Capt. John Rice Hooe - that 'Capt. John' bit is only found on the blog and appears to be totally without foundation (though Rice had a son[?] of this name). Ref 4 is used to document the subject's association with Edward Bland and Dinwiddie county but the actual text of the named book names neither Bland nor Dinwiddie County.
  • Ref. 3 is used to support the same text, the association with Bland and Dinwiddie. This source seems an improvement because the cited page is about Dinwiddie County, and it mentions both Bland and Rice Hooe. However, all it says of Hooe is that he and several other men, including Walter Chiles who later settled in Dinwiddie County "contemplated in 1642 the discovery of 'a new river or unknowne land, bearing southerly from the Appomattox River'" - it was Chiles, not Hooe, who was associated with Dinwiddie County, and Bland was likewise associated with Dinwiddie County but I don't even find it saying that Bland and Chiles interacted, let alone that Bland and Hooe did.
  • Ref. 1 cites the same source, to say that Hooe was a licensed trade patent holder, but I don't know how you get that from them having contemplated an undiscovered river or country, which is all the cited source says. Here I suspect there is some other document that provides additional details, but you wouldn't know it from the citation.
  • Ref. 2 has the same citation as Ref. 4 with three additional references copied verbatim from the same blog page, "HENING, 4:93; Va. Gaz., R, 24 Mar. 1768; NICKLIN [1], 368". This paragraph in the blog is in turn taken verbatim, refs and all, from a National Archives web site [28] and is text the NA is reproducing with permission from the printed volumes of the Diaries of George Washington produced by the U of Va, and still under copyright - it's use by the blog is a blatant COPYVIO. Ref. 2 is used to document the following: "Rice Hooe/Hughes of New Kent, the Burgess and Licensed Trader also had nobility status, officially. According to His Majesty's Stationery Office, Captain, Trader, and Burgess Rice Hughes, of New Kent also the same as Capt John Rice Hooe/Hughes and he was added the roles of the licensed "Brotherhood of Traders" to the Eastern Siouan of the Ocaneechi starting in 1656 and before dying the following year, delegated his role out to others in this Early British American Colonial period in the 17th century." However, the only thing His Majesty's Stationary Office says on the cited pages (the Index again) relevant to the subject is "Hooe, Rice, 739 X. I . . . . . ., . . . . . ., document signed by, 681 n. (10),"[29] and if you look at the actual corresponding text (links above), none of it has anything to do with the material it is cited to document. As to the other supposed sources, their identify can be determined with a little digging. Hening contains a one-sentence report from the subject's grandson giving the local cost of slaves and horses[30]. Va Gaz is a historical newspaper, which contains on the relevant date an advertisement for the Potomac River ferry of a Gerard Hooe, presumably a descendant (paywalled). The Nicklin source is an article in the Virginia Historical Magazine with the tombstone transcripts of a cemetery that on the page cited includes that of Col Rice Hooe,[31] the grandson of our subject, and stating that the Col. came to the area a century after our subject lived, so none of these three additional sources say squat about our subject. The NA site itself only mentions him in passing when referring to Col. Rice as "grandson of Rice (Rhuys) Hooe, a seventeenth-century immigrant from Wales." It is clear that our editor's true source was the blog, and that they never looked at the sources they cite.
  • Ref. 5 again copies the same three sources from the Washington diaries (without citing the Diaries, only referring to them in the text), and spins a whole tale about Washington's association with the descendants of the immigrant that is entirely unsupported by the cited material, none saying anything about either Washington or our subject.
This took me long enough to dig out that I am not going to go through the rest, but these references are not being used to document the text, just to decorate it. Who knows, maybe I just picked the worst of the footnotes to track down, but if this isn't invention it is so sloppy as to be indistinguishable from invention. This is more than just a page in need of cleaning up, it needs to be blown up. I don't doubt that the person existed, but I am not finding anywhere near the coverage that would constitute notability. Agricolae (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will just comment that POLITICIAN #1 doesn't override the need for substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." It all hinges on how 'substantial' substantial coverage needs to be to meet GNG. My general benchmark is that if all we are ever going to be able to write is a stub, that is apparently not a notable person, independent of more specialized criteria such as POLITICIAN #1 that do not take coverage into account. To me, with these new sources, Hooe is borderline at best but there may be more out there, its existence obscured by all the nonsense that now, thanks to Smmurphy, has been removed. Agricolae (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I appreciate all the research that other editors have performed on this subject. I would agree with stubbing the article (it gave me a headache reading it) - however, am reluctant to delete it. Rogermx (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per recent article improvements. An acceptable stub at this point and sourcing seems reasonable. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I had meant to update my comment above after Smmurphy's WP:HEY work. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 15:44, 7 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. MBisanz talk 13:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Belzberg[edit]

Jenny Belzberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Person of only local or at best regional notability. The Order of Canada does not confer sufficient notability as more than 150 of them are given out each year. Softlavender (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This does need improvement, but the nominator is incorrect about the Order of Canada as a notability claim: as long as an article can be sourced to some evidence of preexisting media coverage about what the person did to earn the distinction, rather than relying solely on their presence in a list of OC inductees as its only sourcing, the OC is a valid notability claim. As I noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Cohen, "member" class in the OC does not automatically connote exclusively local notability — it's the level at which almost everybody in the OC starts at regardless of how local, national or international their notability status may be, because the higher ranks are populated almost entirely by internal bump-ups rather than by people being inducted directly at those levels. And 150 is not a problematic number of inductees, either — we certainly deprecate awards like the 125th Anniversary of the Confederation of Canada Medal, which had 42 thousand inductees in one year, as not inherently notable distinctions, but having just 150 inductees is not enough to problematize an award's notability-making status in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz talk 13:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago School of Mold Making[edit]

Chicago School of Mold Making (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot see that this company is notable. Formerly eligible for a speedy as promotional, I've given it a bit of a haircut. TheLongTone (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I looked at the refs, it is a small company failing corpdepth. Szzuk (talk) 08:27, 12 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. MBisanz talk 13:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Battery Recyclers of America[edit]

Battery Recyclers of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH. PROD contested by article author. shoy (reactions) 12:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 12:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 12:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I opened the refs, they are all company listings or unrelated, nothing that demonstrates notability. Szzuk (talk) 08:25, 12 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. MBisanz talk 13:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hardik Gajjar[edit]

Hardik Gajjar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, refs in the article don't support notability, news showing a one line mention. Szzuk (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Safran[edit]

Carl Safran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Puffy article with uncited claims, on a person of only regional notability. Softlavender (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No opinion on the notability yet, but I cleaned up a lot of the non-neutral language. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a plausible notability claim here that might get him an article if he could be properly sourced as clearing WP:GNG for it, but nothing that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to clear GNG just because he exists — but the referencing here is parked on primary sources like pieces of his own writing, photographs and the self-published websites of organizations he was directly affiliated with, with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him in media that would count as valid support for notability. Also this was created by a banned sockpuppet, so even if his notability could be properly demonstrated by the correct kind of sources, it would still need to be deleted and then recreated from scratch anyway. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Waters[edit]

Tom Waters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. Waters has had a career as an actor, director, equestrian rider and BMX rider, none of which have risen to the level of notability. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (not notable). This might even be an autobiography ("TWfaircroft"?) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not at all notable.Vincelord (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North East Students' Society Delhi University[edit]

North East Students' Society Delhi University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Student councils in a university catering to particular ethnic groups are very common. Sourcing isn't strong enough to establish notability here. A couple of them are notices by institutions, a Daily Mail source and two sources that don't seem reliable. MT TrainTalk 18:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sections Background and Structure sound like WP:OR with just one source, while Former presidents and general secretaries is both unsourced and unnecessary. Excluding these issues, only activism is referenced. I'm not saying the government source is unreliable, it just a press release, not to mention the puffery in it. MT TrainTalk 12:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the section Former presidents and general secretaries. More source on Background can and will be added soon. Also removed several lines in Structure to minimize looking like WP:OR. Let me know what more can be improved. KakhoSimpson (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:50, 5 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 Black Hawk (Amtrak train)#Restoration. Sandstein 14:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Belvidere station[edit]

Belvidere station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL: A series of alleged future train stations that, as of March 2018, supposedly "would have started" or "will start" in 2014 and "would have been" or "will be" completed in 2015, yet never appeared, and are either permanently on hold or otherwise paper fantasies, and some of which haven't even been narrowed down to a single site. Closeapple (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also including the following:

Freeport station (Illinois) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Galena station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Huntley station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Lena station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Rockford station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 10:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to Black Hawk (Amtrak train)#Restoration. Rockford's former station is notable, but there's nothing usable about it in the current article. I think it's very unlikely that this restoration will proceed given the current political climate in Illinois. If it does, then we'll revisit. Mackensen (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I created these pages too soon and they should be deleted for now. If and when the routes these stations are on finally get up and running, then we can ask administrators to restore these pages and update them to reflect the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wof2500 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Applying WP:CRYSTAL to these station articles is nonsensical as they really were and are stations, just not currently operating as passenger stations. How can WP:CRYSTAL apply to something that already exists? That all of these station have received in-depth coverage of the possibility of passenger service returning to them further demonstrates their notability. --Oakshade (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    None of these even have prose about anything that was or is a station. In each, only the infobox is about the old station closed by 1981, and with no citations. (Except Lena station that has nothing about an old station at all.) So the sites that were/"are" stations have no references or text, and the sites that have references and text are not stations, never were stations, and will not be stations in the foreseeable future. Not only that, but for the future stations, most of the references are the same ones, broadly about the proposed new service line, not about each station; each article is then supplemented with news from a local paper. See the essay Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations)#Audience. Whether for the old or new stations, where are the non-local references that support WP:GNG separate from the proposed route (or old route)? --Closeapple (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In each, only the infobox is about the old station closed by 1981" - That's actually an admission these were stations and that's the point. WP:CRYSTAL is nonsensical to stations that have already existed. --Oakshade (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oakshade: Well, not exactly. Service at those cities ended in 1981 when Amtrak discontinued the old Black Hawk. These articles aren't about those stations; they're about new stations which may or may not open at some future point. Possibly these are the same stations which closed in 1981, but there's nothing in the article about them so we don't know. We can't just lazily say that because there is going to be a station in Galena, and there was also a station in Galena up until 1981, that they are the same and therefore both notable. Mackensen (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz talk 13:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Üqoi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Üqoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not seem to be a notable conlang. Professorjohnas (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I tried to find material to expand the article, but wasn't able to find much. The creator's page is only available using archive.org, and there's no evidence that Üqoi was ever picked up by a broader community or systematized. Delete. --Quantum7 09:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I created the current stub based on the assumption that omniglot entries would have some notability. After further research I think that's not the case. --Quantum7 09:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One sentence and no refs. Szzuk (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umunnakwe Ugochukwu[edit]

Umunnakwe Ugochukwu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has not played in a fully professional league as defined by the WikiProject Football and required by WP:NFOOTBALL. There is also a concern with the verifiability as there is no coverage of this footballer. KingAndGod 07:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails to meets either second standard of WP:NFOOTBALL. He has played neither in a fully professional league (He has only played in I-League 2, Wikipedia considers only the Indian Super League and I-League as fully professional), nor has he played a senior international game for his country (or any international for that matter).FirefoxLSD (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY NZFC(talk) 21:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG and NFooty. Govvy (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication that WP:GNG is met or that he is a notable soccer player. Papaursa (talk) 19:53, 12 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. Very low-quality discussion, few editors actually address the quality of the sourcing. Can be renominated if still deemed deficient after the editing that has been done. Sandstein 06:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Davis (businessman)[edit]

Chuck Davis (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability outside of Prodege. Fails WP:GNG. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the article was created by Nicoleprodege, unlikely coincidence? Clearly an SPA which explains why there is so much unsourced info on his early life, and basically everything expect his being chief of Prodege. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - few press releases but nothing more. Lorstaking (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "No notability outside of Prodege", he is a businessman. He is supposed to be notable because of his business. E.g. Donald Trump is notable only because of his business career and presidency of the US. He wouldn't have a Wikipedia article if those are not considered. As for Chuck Davis, there are sources like [32][33][34][35][36]. KingAndGod 14:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found some more third party coverage, and added it. I also culled some of the unsourced promotional info. Davis served as CEO for three companies on Wikipedia, and is an active partner with Technology Crossover Ventures, a >$2.5 Billion VC firm that should have its own article.[[37]] I'm looking for other coverage to add now. Passes WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 17:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is too much bias against businesspeople and toward inclusion of sports and actors here. Legacypac (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
  • And the reason why you think we should keep this one is? ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 21:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - at this state, a mere CV/promo page. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 21:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those can be sorted by editing. Not a reason to delete. KingAndGod 17:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I added some more info with sourcing, and culled some of the unsourced info to make it less problematic. Does that change anyone's delete vote? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:49, 10 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. I appreciate RoySmith's point that these could well be interesting lists for readers; I'll be honest and was somewhat excited to read them. That being said, they are, as many have pointed out, hopelessly incomplete, and will forever be due to the sheer number of molecules (I'll also add on a pedantic note that "molecule" is overbroad, and could arguably include every transcription and translation product from every species). More relevantly, there doesn't seem to be any indication that molecules as such have been described or the subject of great writings in the context of their century of discovery. Such information is more relevant and interesting for elements, but it does not appear so for molecules. The importance of molecules has nothing to do with how notable their year of discovery/invention may be; I don't need to care when water or TNT were "discovered" to care about what they do. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of molecules discovered in the 21st century[edit]

List of molecules discovered in the 21st century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is so uncompletable as to be useless. The number of molecules currently known is astonishingly large, and what counts as discovery? shoy (reactions) 20:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

List of molecules discovered in the 19th century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of molecules discovered in the 20th century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

shoy (reactions) 20:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 20:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 20:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 19th century list might be viable as List of earliest discovered molecules. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a list of molecules, organized by century and year of discovery, for an article with similar structure you can rewiev.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_shipwrecks_by_year

The previous link shows an article with millions of shipwrecks, what they did with the article is separate them in smaller list, one list per year...

This page belong to a series of three pages, that begins with the definition and discovery of elements and molecular theory that starts in 17th century and the first molecules properly discovered by John Dalton and Amedeo Avogadro

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_molecules_discovered_in_the_19th_century

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_molecules_discovered_in_the_20th_century

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_molecules_discovered_in_the_21st_century

The articles are for now not so big as the Lists_of_shipwrecks_by_year, and it is to small that is ok to have theme grouped in pages listing molecules discovered by centuries and not in lists of discovering by years.

If the lists gets big enough I will create lists per decade o per year.

Molecules are way more important that ships and new molecules are discovered and created all the time.

A single molecule could look so small that has to be observed in microscopes, but if we group one specific molecule in the whole universe in one place and we put together the same molecules, for example, water or oxygen... We could no just fill a swimming pool with it, not just an ocean, but a whole galaxy with water or oxygen... In fact there should be galaxies full of water... and our planet could be located in a desertic zone not worthy even for a visit for an smarter and more advanced civilization.

And in other hand, the use that we can do to each molecule could not have limits, could be a drug, a source of energy or even can be part of ourselves during our lifetime. Discovery of new molecules should be as or more important than the discovery of a new star, galaxy or planet.--Zchemic (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps list of sodium compounds discovered in the 20th century or list of iron compounds discovered in the 21st century would be much shorter. --Leiem (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. List is incomplete and unverified but has all the hallmarks of an indiscriminate list. Fails WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. This is outside the scope of an encyclopedia. Date of discovery is a mostly irrelevant statistic for a chemical compound - let's leave collections of statistics such as these to databases that are designed for that purpose such as Chemical Abstracts where you can find the first reported date for over 100 million individual chemical compounds. These lists are a bad idea and hopelessly unmanageable on Wikipedia. A discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#List_of_molecules_by_year_of_discovery indicates Wikipedia's chemists are opposed to having these lists. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Per WP:NON-DEFINING: do not categorise non-defining properties of an article. - DePiep (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the infoboxes {{Chembox}} and {{Drugbox}} (together 17k articles) don't even have a parameter option "date of discovery". (And yes, {{Infobox element}} has — equally correct). - DePiep (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Ridiculous (although well intentioned). How does one confirm the date of discovery (vs date of publication)? Also seems useless.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the list will be much too long to every be useful. Restricting to molecules rules out other kinds of substance, such as ionic, or covalent crystals. Instead of this there could be a history of chemistry in each century, but that is irrelevant to the uselessness off these lists. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recognize that I'm swimming upstream here, but I think these could be interesting and useful articles. However, I'm unclear what the inclusion criteria is. For example, List of molecules discovered in the 19th century includes water in 1811. What does that mean? Certainly, people knew water existed before then. Is 1811 when the molecular structure was worked out? Probably not, because there wasn't any understanding of covalent bonds until a century after that. Or was it just when the stoichiometric ratio of Hydrogen to Oxygen was worked out? Or something else? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grandson (Musical Artist)[edit]

Grandson (Musical Artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A young rapper who fails to meet WP:MUSICBIO. maybe WP:TOOSOON. Saqib (talk) 06:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As written, this just states that he exists and doesn't even attempt to document anything that could even be measured against our actual inclusion standard for musicians — and it doesn't cite anywhere near enough references to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of our complete inability to determine whether he passes NMUSIC or not. Technically, in fact, this is outright speediable. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Kinu t/c 00:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaede Aono[edit]

Kaede Aono (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough in-depth coverage (only some routine and trivial coverage) from independent, reliable sources, hence does not meet WP:GNG, and definitely does not meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 14:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There are no delete votes, a cleanup discussion can continue on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irregular warfare[edit]

Irregular warfare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This word seems to be a neologism with no actual difference from "asymmetric warfare" - I considered proposing a merger, but looking over the article there is not much salvagable content here due to the articles over-reliance on primary sources. This Routlede source [38] explcitly states that "irregular warfare" "asymmetric warfare" and "non-conventional warfare" are all different phrases that mean the same thing, so this title should redirect to the main article. Seraphim System (talk) 06:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ADD: Right now we seem to have at least four articles on the same subject including:

Even if there is a justification for a standalone article about the American military doctrine, we surely do not need three separate articles devoted to it (all with citations to the blog irregularwarrior.com)... Seraphim System (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deletion is not cleanup, and this is not a neologism (which if at all asymmetric warfare is) - use of this term dates back decades at least. Thre might be merit for a merge - maybe - but it is a complex decision here.Icewhiz (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I confess to being puzzled by Nom's assertion that there is "no actual difference" between Irregular warfare and asymmetric warfare. Nom is perhaps unfamiliar with literature on these two types of warfare. But the should be a WP:SNOW keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why E.M.Gregory is puzzled because I posted WP:RS supporting it here [39] - he should post secondary WP:RS instead of making vague statements about uncited "literature"?Seraphim System (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The irregular war definitions are so broad as to both internally contradict each other, as well as both overlap and contrast with asymmetric warfare. If one definition was so clearly the accepted one, then picking that and working with it would be fine, but given the frequent usage of each, we seem to have an article that rests on a very shaky/changeable base. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that irregular warfare encompasses any or most warfare not between regular armies engaged in a formal war. This encompasses Unconventional warfare, and in most cases also encompasses Asymmetric warfare (but not always - a very strong nation against a very weak one could be asymmetric with regular forces on both sides). In any case - this is a widely used term.Icewhiz (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the exact same article as Unconventional Warfare and Unconventional warfare (United States Department of Defense doctrine) - it is cited to the same primary sources, including the same blog. There isn't anything worth merging from this article.
  • variant and/or competing definitions should be dealt with in one article, not by creating POVFORKs - according to WP:RS which I posted from Routledge there is no difference between the terms, with some scholars preferring one to the other in describing the same topic...These arguments sound like they are pushing editor's WP:ORSeraphim System (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The Routledge source you posted says nothing of the sort. It does say "Irregular warfare of this sort is sometimes referred to as" - treating a subform and not the entire concept.Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a subform of irregular warfare. To take the example you described, a conventional army facing one of overwhelmingly superior strength (as in Iraq) will splinter and engage with unconventional tactics. They are different terms describing the same thing. The definitions in these articles trying to classify one as a subform of other are inconsistent, and they are either unsourced or sourced to the same non-RS blog - please don't just repeat what you read in the article here as an argument against deletion.Seraphim System (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I repeated what the source you provided said - which is not that they are the same. Some, but not all (e.g. irregular forces on both sides), forms of irregular warfare are asymetric. The terms are not equivelant.Icewhiz (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the book does not provide the best definition. It does say "irregular warfare of this sort" and then goes on to say 4GW, OOTW and irregular warfare overlap. Even if you were able to show sources to justify a clear conceptual distinction between asymmetric warfare and irregular warfare in WP:RS, it is even more unlikely to distinguish irregular warfare from unconventional warfare. How many POVFORKs do we need for one topicSeraphim System (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The academic consensus is that non-conventional warfare is asymmetric warfare. What makes the conflict non-conventional is the asymmetric power between state and non-state actors. Some sources yse the word irregular warfare as a form of asymmetric warfare, others say asymmetric warfare is a form of irregular warfare - but the majority of WP:RS make no distinction. They use one term or the other -this latter category of sources pose the largest problem to editors. For example: [41] - Why would we include this content in one article but not the other? This is not a good way to write articles. These views should all be represented in separate sections of one-well written article about non-conventional warfare. Sections that grew too long could be spun out. Once again we have a case where four or five articles have been written on the same topic, and they are all of poor quality and sourced to primary sources or blogs. The best approach here is deletion of the POVFORKs and redirecting - can someone please say what content of this article they feel is worth salvaging by merger? Seraphim System (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that academic consensus is nothing of the sort. The latest source you brought says asymetric is usually irregular. So it usually a subform. Not always. And some irregular is not asymetric.Icewhiz (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think anyone posting on this discussion without bothering to post any WP:RS backing their opinions should at least be aware of the widely accepted basic facts about this topic - this is not even something that is controversial or disputed. The only WP:RS for splitting these is the US military doctrine which this article is based on [42] that says asymmetric warfare is a component of irregular warfare, which also includes "terrorism" - but the majority of academic sources consider terrorism to be a form of asymmetric warfare. More sources:
  • Asymmetric warfare of all forms share the same similarities - [43] [44]
  • irregular (asymmetric) warfare [45]
This entire history should be discussed in one article. It's a neologism. I think editors should consult some of the literature before commenting per WP:FORUM. Icewhiz You said And some irregular is not asymmetric - what is the WP:RS for this? Think about it - if it was conventional warfare between two militaries it would not be irregular warfare. These are all different ways of saying the same thing - Wikipedia articles are not written from the POV of U.S. government primary sources and the arbitrary and poorly explained distinctions they have chosen to make. If this distinction is supported by secondary sources you need to post those sources to explain why you are voting keep.Seraphim System (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would, however, withdraw this nomination and agree to move this to a merger discussion if an editor who supports keeping this article could indicate which part of this article and its sourcing would be worth salvaging by merging? I didn't see anything when I nominated but if someone who claims more familiarity with the literature can explain which part of this article has value, then I am open to a merger discussion. What is the point of a merger discussion if there is nothing in the article to merge?Seraphim System (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So far every source you have brought to this discussion has actually supported irregular warfare as distinct from asymetric. As an example, two non state actors - e.g. Kurds vs. the former Islamic state would be an example of irregular warfare that is not asymetric (as would be a few other sides in the Syrian civil war). So would be several African conflicts. We have an abundance of sources that discuss irregular warfare.Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know why you think that - the source literally says asymmeteric warfare in the sense of such armed conflicts being entirely unconventional warfare in nature or sharing the same ingredients or characteristics of irregularity. You will have to post the direct quotes that support your argument here (or on the article talk page later), because I don't see that in the sources at all...
  • The example of the Kurds and ISIS is an interesting point, and personally I agree that it would be an example of irregular warfare that is not asymmetric - but do you have any sources on point for this? It would require a major rewrite of the article in any case, but if there is sourcing for this it might establish notability for an independent topic.Seraphim System (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the POV of the US irregular is often assymetric (with the exception of the US using irregular proxies, e.g. Bay of Pigs and many others). IS /Nusra/ Kurds is a bit too modern of an example for academic writing, but there are plenty of sources on irregular warfare in various African conflicts.Icewhiz (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A well studied form of warfare with its own voluminous literature. As the Routledge source linked to in the Nom suggests, IW can sometimes overlap with Asymmetric Warfare (AW). But this does make IW = AW anymore than phenomena like Formula One means Driving = Racing. We often have IW involving "irregular elements fighting against other irregular elements" - when they are of about the same strength, as has been the case for example in some of recent factional skirmishes in Syria, then it's not AW. Similarly, in the admittedly fairly rare case where two grossly mismatched regular forces fight, its Asymmetric but not IW. I hope this helps clear up any confusion.FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've recently returned from a long wiki break, welcome back. An article in this condition should properly be TNT'd. There is nothing salvageable in the article and it will have to be rewritten entirely based on secondary sources. Posting forum like comments without WP:RS supporting them does not clear up any confusion. If we go by the sources and not your WP:OR these terms all mean the same thing - non conventional warfare. There is no widely accepted working definition more specific than that (neologism).
  • There is no widely accepted, working definition for this term in WP:RS - that is a neologism. No editor has been able to post a reliable source for how to define this. Every source we have looked at defines it differently, and none of those definitions is distinguishable from similar definitions given for asymmetric warfare and non-conventional warfare. No one can really say what the accepted definition of irregular warfare is, only that it is in use. That is a neologism. Until editors can produce sources to support their personal theories about how these words should be defined, this article should at least be moved back to userspace/draftspace. Seraphim System (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even a cursory search shows that multiple books and journal papers have been written on IW in the past few decades. This is not a neologism. I disagree that definitions conflict - for the most part they are quite aligned - but even if they did this would not be grounds for deletion. This is a 10 year old article that is not great, but not bad either (the def according to US doctrine in the lead should probably go, as should some refs). This is far from TNT.Icewhiz (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can say I disagree but the fact is that the definitions in the sources do contradict each other. A term can be in use and still be a neologism. In fact, most neologisms are compound terms that are artificial constructs, much like this one. Most of the article is sourced to the blog irregularwarrior.com and to primary sources. The fact that this has been in mainspace for 10 years is embarrassing - the length of time only means that significant improvement is unlikely. It shouldn't just stay in main space like this forever with an empty hope that a competent editor, knowledgeable about the subject, will come along and do the work to rewrite the entire article based on secondary sources - it should be draftified unless someone is actually planning to work on it.
  • If all the primary sources were removed than it would basically be stubified - that might be better than a redlink, but the encyclopedia loses nothing by redirecting this to Unconventional warfare...I guess this could be discussed further in a merger proposal - but you have declined to indicate what part of this article you think should be kept by merging.
  • The arguments here have focused a lot of asymmetric warfare but have not addressed the possibility of redirecting/merging to unconventional warfare - Even if there are WP:RS to support the one case editors have proposed of irregular warfare that is not asymmetric (between two irregular forces, instead of one irregular force and a conventional military) why couldn't that just be added to the unconventional warfare article?Seraphim System (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal to merge to Unconventional warfare has even less merit than asymmetric - which is why I at least did not address this. While UW is IW (usually), this does not mean UW=IW. Unconventional warfare refers to the very narrow use of irregular warfare (using on the ground resistance movements and/or some other proxy force connected to counter regime forces) by a state actor to overthrow the regime of another state actor. IW is much wider than that - e.g. guerrilla forces that are not supported by foreign governments (and of course the example above of Kurds / Nusra / Islamic-State against each other).Icewhiz (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the welcome back Seraphim, most kind of you. From my less than complete knowledge of the sources here, I think you might have a stronger case with UW. Still, Icewhiz may be correct, they obviously know what they're talking about in this topic class. Certainly some scholars do like to differentiate IW & UW, for example good professor Stathis Kalyvas (now at All Souls Oxford) has been doing so in various books and papers since at least 2005. As EM Gregory says, "definition conflict" issues exist with a great many useful scholarly terms. It's been said that "All other trades are contained in that of war." , while in contrast no less an authoritative source than von Clausewitz defined war as merely a subset of Politics. Yet obviously the vast majority of sources make a distinction(at least implicitly), and we best serve our readers by having separate articles for war & politics. With IW & UW I agree consolidation was worth considering, but on balance keeping separate articles seems the encyclopaedic thing to do, per WP:CONSPLIT and the fact there is sometimes distinction in the sources.FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not Icewhiz is correct is not what matters here, whether or not WP:RS support his proposed defnitions does. various books and papers - usually a reference given in a discussion should be enough for an editor to verify. (Page numbers and quotes should be provided when an editor requests them) - as I have done here. This is not really a good use of time because this will all have to be discussed again during a merger proposal where contributing editors will be expected to post supporting WP:RS, which they have declined to do here despite several requests. Seraphim System (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A single book published by Praeger Security does not show WP:GNG, it shows that this is a POVFORK - with the hundreds of books available no one has been able to point to one that explains the difference between unconventional warfare and irregular warfare. Only sources that use one term or the other.Seraphim System (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LK Sudhish[edit]

LK Sudhish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was speedy deleted twice last year under G7 and G11.. this is a BLP on a film producer-turned-politician but basically it fails WP:POLITICIAN because the subject never elected to state or national level parliament. Second this may also fails WP:PRODUCER because seemingly he may have produced some Tamil movies but on a closer look, I found that the subject was not the actual producer but some company called Captain Cine Creations which is apparently run or owned by Vijayakanth... Vijayakanth starred in all the movie mentioned on this page and is brother in law of the subject. Saqib (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsuccessful election candidates do not pass WP:NPOL just for being candidates — he has to win the election, not just run in it, to clinch notability as a politician, and otherwise the only other route to a Wikipedia article is to demonstrate that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy itself. But this offers no such evidence at all: film producers don't get an automatic inclusion freebie either, but get Wikipedia articles only if they can be reliably sourced as clearing WP:GNG for their work as film producers — but LK Sudhish's work as a film producer is "referenced" to IMDb-like databases and blogs, not to any media coverage about him. There's also a history of conflict of interest here, as the article's original iteration last year was created by the subject himself as an WP:AUTOBIO (which, furthermore, falsely claimed his holding of a political office he has not actually held), so even though I can't prove it this time I have my doubts about this version's creator too. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nominator's assessment is correct, the subject was a candidate for a political office but failed to win said office, and their career as a film producer fails WP:ENT.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN and does not appear to pass WP:ENT either. SportingFlyer talk 21:50, 7 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. MBisanz talk 13:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Jha[edit]

Priyanka Jha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable model and beauty pageant contestant, I originally prodded this article, but the prod was then removed by the author without any improvements in the sources with a comment made edits to make the article unbiased. There is no evidence to satisfy WP:NACTOR or WP:NMODEL and no significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources for a stand-alone article at least not yet. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't agree with the observation of of this other person; Media reference has been provided and the page is not promotional at all. She brought a lot of pride and fame to country by winning Miss International Tourism from participants of 108 countries and was a Femina Miss India Top-5California.match1 (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@California.match1: Can you please provide a reliable source to support your assertion? because as per what I can see is the winner of Miss Tourism International 2006 was Manea Florina. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GSS-1987:Yes, here is the link to a prominent publication of India- DNAIndia for your reference. Seems like you are getting confused between "Miss Tourism International" and "Miss International Tourism", The way it works is that Top-5 of Miss India get sent to 5 different pageants like Miss Universe, Miss World, Miss Earth, Miss International etc; Please see this link-[46] California.match1 (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@California.match1: Ok so as per this interview published back in 2006 she was the winner of a non-notable beauty contest Miss International Tourism which is different from Miss Tourism International so winning a non-notable/minor beauty contest does not impart notability in my opinion and there is no evidence to setisfy WP:NACTOR either. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GSS-1987:I beg to differ. As a matter of fact, Miss International Tourism is bigger than Miss Tourism International which is backed by a South East Asian Conutry. You may have seen this in a DNA India link. Not just that, she was one of the Top-5 Miss India as well and I can't post the youTube link because of wiki policy but you are more than welcome to look it up and here is another link to support: [47]. Hope this suffices.California.match1 (talk) 09:48, 6 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 Newton-X. MBisanz talk 13:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NewtonX[edit]

NewtonX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable tech company startup. Fails WP:NCORP due to a lack of in-depth, significant sources that mention the company itself as opposed to covering the field of AI and tech startups. Article fails WP:CORPDEPTH for the same reason, with what limited coverage the start-up being focused around interviews. Also a likely WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON failure given that the company was founded in 2016. It is also important to note that the company does not inherit notability from it's founders, which themselves are likely non-notable. SamHolt6 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The company has major investors, huge clients, and notable founders. Editing to make this clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElainaNX (talk • contribs) 14:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore redirect to Newton-X. I created this redirect after deleting the first appearance of this page as A7 because it's a plausible search term. The company discussed here is not notable as the nominator has pointed out despite the newly added "sources" one of which dates before the company was founded and the other merely mentions it once without context. I found no more coverage than that (except some "says John Doe, CEO of NewtonX" mentions). Regards SoWhy 06:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adheres to WP:COMPANY due to validity of sources concerning founders and company (Wired, VentureBeat, TNW, Harvard Business School - all of which = multiple and reliable sources WP:SOURCE and WP:RS). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElainaNX (talk • contribs) 22:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that ElainaNX has been blocked for sock puppetry per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ElainaNX.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, some new refs were added but notability didn't change. Szzuk (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Pierre Layman[edit]

Dale Pierre Layman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable minor academic and minor writer. I was asked a few days ago for my opinion at User Talk:Ritchie333, and said: "It's easy to document the books on WorldCat, and that's what I use to prevent WP:BLPPROD when relevant; I do not consider PRnewswire a RS for bio. There are a few more books, but the only significant one is Biology Demystified. ("Running..." is just his phd thesis,which has never been cited; he has no research publications. I added the thesis and the ref to the article.) . The information in the two press releases is absurd hyperbola. The only possible WP:PROF criterion is the subsection of criterion 4, "Tor example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education." One of his book is in 1200 libraries. But it is not a college textbook, but a very elementary presentation--the publisher's blurb found in the Worldcat reference, makes it plain that it is deliberately written to be something easier than a textbook. And I don't think this single book would meet WP:AUTHOR either. I haven't looked for reviews , though. This is an attempt at a promotional bio presumably motivated by a forthcoming publication. A remarkably unsophisticated attempt at puffery, to judge by the originally submitted text, which can still be seen in the ref it was copied from. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've been a little conflicted on this one, as can be seen in the discussion that led up to this. The subject abundantly fails GNG, and from what I can tell, it's not actually possible at this point to write anything other than a barely and overall poorly referenced stub. Reading DGG's take on it, one in these two areas in particular I respect, arguments for AUTHOR and PROF are borderline at the very best. So I'm inclined to think that in a situation like that, where nothing other than a barely and overall poorly referenced stub can in principle be written on a BLP, we should probably err on the side of deletion, since according to policy, all this poorly referenced material should be removed anyway, leaving us with essentially either a blank page, or a short bibliography for an article. GMGtalk 12:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was not part of the discussion referred to above. I ran good faith searches on his name and on Biology demystified but found nothing useful - a Proquest news archive search turned up 5 press releases and nothing else. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:00, 10 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. MBisanz talk 13:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Stewart[edit]

Philip Stewart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Queried speedy delete for notability query. This page has stood for 12 years :: better discuss it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has written one - apparently not that successful - book on his own. No other indicators of notability.Wikitigresito (talk) 05:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Author of a single book, published by "Ithaca Books", my searches have not turned up the least trace of that publisher, and I assume that the book is self-published. I cannot say for sure whether any of his academic work in forestry or in Arabic/Islamic studies is notable (several book chapters listed on the page,) but the article itself seems to indicate that this may be an individual whose trajectory has followed the sort of tragic path depicted in A Beautiful Mind (film). In sadness, E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:10, 10 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. Well that was an interesting one! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Kurrajong Heights - Modern Residential to Cost £25,000[edit]

Hotel Kurrajong Heights - Modern Residential to Cost £25,000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a wholesale copy-paste of a news article from 1926 with no claim to encyclopedic notability. Madg2011 (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • REPLY - None of the content available on Trove is mere copy and paste.
In Trove's About Page https://trove.nla.gov.au/general/about (and verified by me during a telephone call to The National Library of Australia +61 02 6262-1266) it states:
About Trove Trove helps you find and use resources relating to Australia. It's more than a search engine. Trove brings together content from libraries, museums, archives, repositories and other research and collecting organisations big and small. A list of contributors and partners whose collections are included in Trove can be viewed online.
Trove's origins can be traced back to a project launched by the National Library of Australia in August 2008. Its aim was to build a portal for all of the Library’s online discovery services, including the Register of Australian Archives and Manuscripts, Picture Australia, Libraries Australia, Music Australia, Australia Dancing, PANDORA web archive, ARROW Discovery Service and the Australian Newspapers Beta service.
Today Trove is transformed, growing far beyond its original purpose and becoming many things to many people: a community, a set of services, an aggregation of metadata, and a growing repository of full text digital resources. Trove is a platform on which new knowledge is being built. It is a collaboration between the National Library, Australia's State and Territory libraries and hundreds of cultural and research institutions around Australia, working together to create a legacy of Australia’s knowledge for now and into the future.
Best of all, Trove is yours. As you text correct, comment, tag or contribute content you are helping to build a better service for everyone.
During my telephone conversation with the Librarian he was interested to hear that I intended to use the newspaper clippings for inclusion in Wikipedia. He said that as long as I credited The National Library of Australia I was allowed to use any newspaper scan before 1950 as they were out of copyright and now in the Public Domain.
This article (and hopefully many more) will form a part of the MAIN Wiki page I am constructing called [Kurrajong Heights Hotel] that is in Draft at the moment.
Here is a link to the condition of this article in Trove https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/85956118
Will I have to go through this for every news clipping I add to Wikipedia?
User:Southern Armada — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southern Armada (talk • contribs) 06:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't add any news clippings to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper archive. You can link to pages on other websites (see WP:REF), but please don't just copy things like this. It's not what Wikipedia is all about. Please also note (re: Draft:Kurrajong Heights Hotel) that we don't write articles as a sequence of quotes from newspapers. Again, that's not how encyclopaedias are written. Use your own words and cite the sources; don't just copy from elsewhere (except very sparingly when a direct quote really is appropriate). -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper archive. - Indeed, Trove is the newspaper archive. We don't need to mirror it here. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Ajf773 (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This. Is. Not. An. Encyclopaedia. Article! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and per the two editors above. While this appears to have been created in very good faith as part of creating an article, Wikipedia entries need to be encyclopedic content. Trove does a great job of preserving material like this, and should be used as the reference for the article - there's no need to bring references 'in house' by copying their text into Wikipedia as was the intention here. Southern Amada, you might find Help:Referencing for beginners useful. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree as nom. Didn't mean to WP:BITE the newcomer - certainly seems like the article was created in good faith. Madg2011 (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is not on the internet unless I put it there. Therefore it cannot be cited. The scans on Trove are barely readable and when a person (as I do) corrects the scan it is still not in a presentable form. Did anyone check my source? https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/85956118 In bringing the existence of the Kurrajong Heights Hotel to the internet (as there is nothing now) it will be preserved. And preserving the journalistic jargon of the time is worthy of keeping, not my grammatical version of what happened so many years ago. I have even created an image of the headlines to preserve that historical feel. Southern Armada (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository of news stories and the like. Trove welcomes reader-generated corrections to the automatically scanned text (which appears in the column at the left of the page), and has a large community of volunteers who do this (details of how to participate are available here). If the Trove scan and its automatically generated text aren't useful, I'd suggest that you correct it. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article is not on the internet unless I put it there - Trove is on the internet, the article is on Trove so therefore the article is on the internet. I just noticed that you created Draft:Kurrajong Heights Hotel. If you really want to use the Trove source you don't need to duplicate it as a separate article. Just use the pertinent facts and cite trove in Draft:Kurrajong Heights Hotel. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you do not understand Trove - It is unsearchable by any search engine such as google. Therefore, unless the general public is acquainted with Trove and is willing to try reading fractured scan text or try and read the actual newspaper print then none of it will be found. Trove is a tool to make the text available to developers not a publishing platform. This is something that I am attempting to do by collating the only available recorded history of the Kurrajong Heights Hotel into one place while retaining the look and feel of the grammar of the period. I am NOT trying to make Wikipedia a repository of news stories, I and trying to record the history of the Kurrajong Heights Hotel Southern Armada (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Southern Armada - there are a wide variety of Wikipedia citation templates that can, I assure you, accommodate news archives like Trove. It's not necessary, and against the rules of Wikipedia, to create an article consisting solely of primary-source material to serve as a reference for another article. Madg2011 (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Southern Armada - I think you'll find that most people here understand Trove. We've been using it for ages. As Madg2011 said, it's against the rules of Wikipedia to create an article consisting solely of primary source material. As I said above, the correct method of using Trove material is to write an article, preferably in your own words, and to cite trove from your article. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone point me towards these citation templates that accommodate news archives? I cannot find them. Southern Armada (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Southern Armada This is not the place to do so but tomorrow I will put a message on the talk page of your Kurrajong Heights Hotel draft to show you how to simply cite from Trove. JennyOz (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong delete. The subject of the article, in its current form, is a newspaper article. Said newspaper article itself totally fails WP:GNG. There are no critical works written about the newspaper article. Accordingly, it is an unsuitable topic for Wikipedia. (Whether the text of the article is free and can be used on Wikisource is an entirely separate issue.) —C.Fred (talk) 03:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unfortunately. Southern Armada you have put in a lot of work but unfortunately it is just not in the form of a wikipedia article. Please take heed of the advice and comments already offered by others above and keep on editing in wikipedia. We need editors like you who have an in-depth interest in subjects and can create content. Aoziwe (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:TNT in current form.Icewhiz (talk) 13:40, 8 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lehlohonolo Seokwe[edit]

Lehlohonolo Seokwe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

person seems not notable, they have results when looking up the exact name, however looking up CyberGeek yields no immediate results. Creeperparty568 - It and all! 03:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete quick check of Google, one or two hits. Doesn't seem notable.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7 and and tagged as such. Zero coverage other than social media profiles, and no claim of significant in the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IDNPLAY[edit]

IDNPLAY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Software developer for gambling sites. No indication of notability, and sources are passing mentions. Calton | Talk 02:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable software. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the article was created by user with blatant conflict of interest. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:55, 5 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Mermaid (1992 film)[edit]

The Little Mermaid (1992 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable direct-to-video release that does not meet the notability guidelines of a Wikipedia entry. Film is barely referenced in notable sources online and does not have the cultural significance meriting its own page Magic1million (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:30, 5 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. Nomination withdrawn. I had originally omitted the word "speedy" as this had happened after over 7 days, sorry. (non-admin closure) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Original, incorrect closure, overturned by myself: The result was keep ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black-Yellow Alliance[edit]

Black-Yellow Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article subject does not have verifiable notability and has been deleted from German (!) Wikipedia many times for being an advertisement of a completely irrelevant political party group.

de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/30._Juni_2005#Schwarz-Gelbe_Allianz_und_Bild:Manfred_Koerner.jpg_(gelööscht), de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/9._Dezember_2005#Schwarz-Gelbe_Allianz_(erledigt,_Wiedergänger), de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/3._Dezember_2014#Schwarz-gelbe_Allianz_(geSLAt) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: It might not even be a registered political party. The requirements to officially form one for an election might not even have been met by this... club. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I checked Factiva, 4 articles there, but I think the issue is we are searching English language media. If you search for the German name of the organisation, you get more than 7000 hits. Probably would get more if you specifically searched Austrian or German language media. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Deathlibrarian: Your "hits" when searching might mainly be about the German alliance between CDU and FDP (conservatives and liberals), which is commonly called a "black-yellow" alliance. It has nothing to do with the Austrian club. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
many of the articles seem to be referring to the monarchy (not that I can read German) so I gather they must be talking about this party, unless the other one also has monarchist leanings as well.! Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Deathlibrarian: Having knowledge of German, I can assure you that the vast majority of articles are about the (non-monarchist) German political alliance between between the German parties, because they have formed the federal government several times (I think more often than any other coalitation), for example Merkel was elected chancellor with the votes of the black-yellow-coalition for her term from 2009 to 2013 (Second Merkel Cabinet). Furthermore, the term is also used to refer to the numerous coalitions of these parties at state and municipal level. In contrast, the Austrian Black-Yellow Alliance apparently has never had a member holding an elected office. Wikitigresito (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wikitigresito, that's helpful - however, another point in support of keeping - there are pages for this article in 7 different languages. So it would be odd for it be deleted because english language wiki thought it wasn't notable, when other non english language wikis thought it was, particularly when its about a foreign concept. I'm generally for erring to the side of keep in these sort of situations. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neutral There is indeed some coverage in reliable sources in German, but just surficial notes because this political group is so strange. As far as I can see, they have not won any elections nor have had any significant impact on Austrian politics in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitigresito (talk • contribs) 05:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikitigresito: Thank you for supporting the deletion, but please also point me to the coverage in reliable sources. This might be a coincidental misunderstanding. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree: Here in Süddeutsche http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/monarchisten-partei-ein-kaiser-fuer-oesterreich-1.1713784 and here in Der Standard https://derstandard.at/1373513432272/Monarchisten-Wir-sind-keine-Nostalgie-Partei. However, after and before 2013 I don't really find anything. Also, they explicitly do not view themselves as a party: http://sga.monarchisten.org/die-monarchisten.html Wikitigresito (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikitigresito: Oh. That really hit me unexpectedly. I did a Google News search (for the English term, now that I think about it) and all I had received was exactly 4 articles, and all about my expected German coalition. Alright then. Combined with these two articles, Nightstallion's arguments are beginning to convince me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Checking again, the last one of my four even reports about the article subject: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/mixed-feelings-as-austria-bids-farewell-to-the-last-of-the-habsburgs-1.601706 -- ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
About not being a party, this part of the Sueddeutsche article might be interesting:

Schon bei der Nationalratswahl im Jahr 2008 wollten die Monarchisten antreten, bekamen aber nicht genug Unterstützer-Unterschriften zusammen. Sollte es wieder nicht gelingen, "wäre das auch kein Beinbruch", sagt Alexander Simec, "dann probieren wir es nächstes Mal wieder."

Attempted rough translation by me:
The Monarchists already wanted to take part in the legislative election in 2008, but did not receive enough endorsing signatures. Should it again not succeed, 'that would also not be the end of the world,' said Alexander Simec, 'then we will try again next time.'
Although they officially don't view themselves as a party, they did at least in the past seem to attempt to take part in the election -- and failed to do so. It's really just a club, seemingly contrary to Nightstallion's statement that it is "ridiculously easy to set up a political party in Austria, even easier than setting up a legal association" ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a bit of a misunderstanding, I think. Many political parties all around the world claim not be a party, but instead a “movement”, usually even “of people just like you and me” or “citizens' movement” (= Bürgerbewegung). —Nightstallion 06:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has been featured in electoral reporting repeatedly, even if they never actually managed to contest an election AFAIK. The reasons given by the nominator are also erroneous, for two reasons: The German-language Wikipedia is notorious for being very restrictive in their criteria for notability and encyclopedic value; and it is actually ridiculously easy to set up a political party in Austria, even easier than setting up a legal association (Verein). ;) —Nightstallion 07:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightstallion: This, too, might be about the German alliance between CDU and FDP (conservatives and liberals), which is commonly called a "black-yellow" alliance. It might have nothing to do with the Austrian club. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This decision is harder than I expected it to be. The result might really be interesting. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just to give you some more links with news reports on the SGA: neuwal, neuwal (again), Die Presse, Der Standard, Der Standard (again), Süddeutsche Zeitung, Österreich, Bezirksblatt. (They're mostly concentrated on pre-electoral coverage, of course.) I'll readily concede that they're not the epitome of notability, but while there are actually over a thousand registered political parties (again, it's ridiculously easy to register a *party* (especially compared to a Verein, which has to comply with far stricter regulations) – what's far more difficult is to be allowed to *contest an election*), there aren't actually that many that even make a serious attempt to contest national elections, so I'd argue that helps their notability in addition to the news sources I cited. —Nightstallion 06:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was honestly surprised by the articles about this subject, and I had misinterpreted the Google results to be all about the German CDU-FDP (black-yellow) coalition. Maybe I even had been influenced by a filter bubble (I'm from Germany, and information about these parties is very likely to be more relevant than this Austrian group to me), but I had definitely misinterpreted at least one Google News search result that did show an article about the article subject. In my decision to nominate the article for deletion, I wrongly expected the German Wikipedia's deletion discussions to be useful for making a good decision here. I learned in this week that they are using stricter criteria than the English Wikipedia does, and that a strongly deleted article there does not imply lack of notability here. Let's keep the article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Jagota[edit]

Ajay Jagota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An advertorially-toned page for an unremarkable entrepreneur. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, quotes by the subject (i.e. [49]), and other WP:SPIP sources. Created by a banned sock (Special:Contributions/Jiahimedluke); pls see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Anatha_Gulati. Likely UPE. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite abuses as such Wikipedia is not a platform for self advertising.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 6 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vendetta Films[edit]

Vendetta Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A distributor in the Australia & New Zealand markets, not a producer. We could add a list of films they distribute , to change a mere listing to a product catalog, but neither belong here. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A mere company listing, with no sources -- or even suggestion -- indicating notability. --Calton | Talk 02:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH. They exist but they don't qualify for an article - yet. If this ever changes it can be restored. MarnetteD|Talk 04:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sources given at all to demonstrate notability. Indeed, A7 might potentially be in place, for a Speedy Delete, but I'll leave CSD considerations to those significantly more knowledgeable. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources, only profiles, press releases, and brief (and by brief I mean brief) mentions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and above arguments. Hoverfish Talk 15:17, 6 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. MBisanz talk 13:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sealup[edit]

Sealup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

obvious PR notice for non notable firm by obvious spa. Unaccountably kept back in 2009. a basic google search found only advertisements DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable business. It should have been speedied since when it was created. –Ammarpad (talk)
  • Weak keep - Their product is featured in a few fashion magazines, as linked here [[50]], and Robb Report discusses them (albeit with a lazy typo in the URL)[[51]]. They're mentioned here, briefly [[52]]. There's also a history with Jacqueline Kennedy that apparently made them famous back then. This blog (I know - not a RS) says they were important in the late 1950s and early 1960s, probably because of Jackie O.[[53]]. Since notability isn't temporary, per site convention, they probably warrant at least a few lines. I can't find anything on the Italian Wikipedia, for what it's worth, but there are some Italian hits (sorry for the unfortunate metaphor) for founder Filippo Chiesa.[[54]] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.  samee  converse  08:30, 13 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_April_5&oldid=1142617126"