Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 April	29 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 11:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lalita Pandit[edit]

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

nn prof tagged since 2012 Staszek Lem (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giridhari Lal Pandit[edit]

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

nn professor tagged since 2010 Staszek Lem (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to passing academic notability status.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNg L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPROF. FITINDIA 17:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPROF. Preaky (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. So Why 11:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Devon (actress)[edit]

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

I know "all hotties are notable" and porncruft has a loyal following on Wikipedia but only one of the 27 cited sources here comes close to WP:RS, and that's a namecheck, saying that the subject of the article once dated her. We don't even have a real name. There is nothing about her other than kayfabe. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The overcoverage of pornographic actresses is one of the most complained about problems of Wikipedia. It is articles like this one that make it possible to argue it is a problem with Wikipedia itself, and not a reflection of what we value in our culture that some people think we should change in valuing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert:, sure, and a million sportsmans in Wikipedia (with blissful achievements) are not a problem. Men from Uganda (known only in his country), only one time took the 90th place at the World Cup - encyclopedic, but well known in many countries awarded porn actress - not. OK. And a million poets with two books/brochures, million mayors without achievements, etc. This is just... stupidity. Profession is a profession, who are you to remove well known in many countries awarded porn actress and leave the mayor of a some town or regional sportsmans without achievements? Do you want changes in encyclopedicism? Ok, but fairly, in many areas/topics, for example: sportsmans, poets and similar, mayors......... etc etc. Then I will support it. For now you are an ordinary troll who unjustly harassing for one discipline. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 18:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear: meets of WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Always, blindly you voted for removal. User:Johnpacklambert, now you showed your intentions, you are a troll wanting to delete articles about erotica in a mass way. Please - stop trolling. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 18:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I'm not a fan of porn or porn stars, actually reading WP:RS shows that enough of the references do satisfy WP:RS to show that she satisfies (no pun intended) WP:GNG. Ross-c (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources would you say meet RS? Guy (Help!) 08:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above. Sources show it meets WP:GNG crit. Gidev the Dood^(Talk) 19:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She won an individual main "acting" award, is a member of the AVN Hall of Fame and on top of that the article is well sourced. All this combined clearly satisfies Wikipedia:Notability. -- fdewaele, 2 May 2018, 18:33 CET.
Keep - meets of WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 18:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_members_of_the_AVN_Hall_of_Fame#Members. The PORNBIO SNG has been largely discredited; the consensus at AfDs in the past year has been that, absent sources, the articles are deleted or redirected. The sources in the article consist of online databases, industry PR materials, interviews, etc. Not suitable for writing an NPOV bio.

The content is largely trivia, as in: "She has four cats names Bouses, Bruiser, Russian and Seven, and Devon" (!). Compare with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sascha (actor) which closed as redirect to List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect non trivial sourced information can be mentioned on the list. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources on Google as well as those in the article, Not sure about PORNBIO but certainly meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 11:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vectone Mobile[edit]

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

nn mobile op. Tagged since 2013 Staszek Lem (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a re-seller of mobile phone air space, one ref in the article which doesn't say much, after googling the only thing notable about them appears to be their awful customer service, their parent company mundio mobile doesn't have a page here so nowhere to redirect. Szzuk (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 11:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Globaltel[edit]

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

nn company. The article was created in a weird way: It looks like its content was extracted from a deleted wikipedia page from 2011. the company's supposed home page direct to another busuness. and the "review" link is long dead. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS.Gotcha! It is cut-an paste of Vectone Mobile. @AlexTylersMail: WTF? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a re-seller of mobile phone air space, one ref in the article which doesn't say much, after googling the only thing notable about them appears to be their awful customer service, their parent company mundio mobile doesn't have a page here so nowhere to redirect. Szzuk (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 11:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khaneh (Persian placename)[edit]

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

Is this a disambiguation page? If so, where are the valid links? The Banner talk 21:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment Even not exactly disambiguation, but it is IMO a valid search term, because there are quite a few placenames named Khaneh something or Something Khaneh, which may be confusing to an English reader. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If against separate page, then merge to Khana (disambiguation), a spelling variant. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not wild about "search" pages, but rather than a disambiguation page this appears to be trying to be a set index page. --Bejnar (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might be if it indexed anything! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I support the deletion, but the 3 pages that redirect here (Khanah, Khane, Khaneh) will have to be taken to RfD. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you would oppose deleting the redirects per WP:G8 should this be deleted? -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this certainly is not a valid disambiguation page. Having a page of "Khaneh something or Something Khaneh" would be in violation of WP:PTM, unless it can be shown via sourcing that the place is also known simply as "Khaneh". -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so Khaneh means habitation/house in Persian, and can be latinized several ways, that may belong in Wiktionary but not here. As would a similar article about how toun, ton and town may be parts of placenames in English-speaking places. Deletion is proper without prejudice to someone creating an equivalent Persian article to List of generic forms in place names in the United Kingdom and Ireland if sources permit (which they probably do) but not having search links like the current article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment -- I am baffled. There are quite a few articles such as Llan (placename). WHy persian one is up to deletion? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brigham D. Madsen[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. I asked the author of this article about it and they think it passes both. The subject was not in a named chair, has not received notable awards, is not the subject of multiple, independent, reliable sources. Most of the Google hits that come up are his own works plus some brief mentions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does the nominator have a reliable source for awards from the Utah State Historical Society, from Westerners International, and from John Whitmer Historical Association not passing muster per wp:AUTHOR? A cursory glance at Google Scholar shows just one of his books, on the northern Shoshoni, is cited in 46 papers.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nomination is embarrassing as evidence of a perhaps blatant ghettoization of Native American studies and religion studies on WP. (Indeed, there seems to be a systemic pattern of AfD closings' closings' failure to discount mere reflex !voting not founded per things outlined e.g. at WP:GOODARG [Eg "Adolf Hitler wasn't successful in his field of art. Not a notable person.]", with often the closer's coup de gras being even to bypass the basic premise of closings that lack of consensus within an AfD's argumentation defaults to keep.) But I'll not sidetrack myself here, either. Sorry. Note that wp:PROF itself says when a prospective subject is an academic writer whose works have been the subject of multiple reviews, the person is considered notable (this is not even concerning whether these books have received notable awards...speaking of sidetracking). Wp:PROF itself also says it does not supersede wp:GNG, which in turn says that a prospective subject need pass the hurdle of its having received non-trivial coverage in reliable sources.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hodgdon's secret garden: PROF does not, so far as I can see, say the things you are falsely claiming. Please double-check. In fact, you've made the same false claim before almost word-for-word. That's sloppy. If you're going to make some nonsense claim you could do better than just copy it out of some boilerplate word document. Also, thanks for calling me a bigot. I wrote the article about Sylvia M. Broadbent who studied three native languages in southern California as well as the Muisca people in Colombia, but you keep beating that drum that I'm persecuting academics that study Native Americans/ Amerindian peoples. When this AfD is over I'll consider taking the matter to ANI so you can start treating other editors fairly. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

wp:PROF: #1. "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."

wp:PROF: #9. "9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC."

wp:PROF: "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the General Notability Guideline."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the spirit of our times being Realpolitik and personalities, I prefer substance. Thanks. Please avoid these poor arguments: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews. E.g.: Whether an award is an award: On point. Whether wp:PROF says what wp:PROF says: Ditto. That I copy'n'past myself: WTF!--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Reasonable notability is claimed here. Secret garden instead of laboriously typing angry rants could have improved the article in half that time. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Madsen was a notable author of widely cited and often reviewed history books. One reliable source wrote "Idaho-raised historians Leonard Arrington and Brigham Madsen made major contributions to the intellectual and cultural life of Utah and the Rocky Mountain West as well as to their home state." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly does not pass GNG. The source that Staszek Lem cites is a paid-for, family created obituary in the Deseret News, it was not created by the news staff. His work overall just does not rise to the level of passing academic notability guideline one, so there is no sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lengthy, staff-written obituary in the Salt Lake Tribune. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cmt - In addition to the just-cited profile by Peggy Fletcher Stack of the S.L. Tribune after his death, Nancy J. Taniguchi published "In Memoriam: Brigham Dwaine Madsen" in the Utah Historical Quarterly, among other such tributes to this 20th-century scholar of various Western U.S. historical subfields.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep influential and oft cited professor and author. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep influential author. [1] [2] No purpose served in deleting the bio of someone who published 11 books, some of which went through quite a few editions. There are several quality obits available as noted. Legacypac (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, therefore WP:PROF is irrelevant. In addition to the previously mentioned obituaries in the Salt Lake Tribune, Idaho State Journal, and Utah Historical Quarterly, his obit in Continuum, The Magazine of the University of Utah, while not entirely independent of the subject, credibly documents his academic and administrative work at the University, and states two of his books received best nonfiction book of the year award by Westerners International (admittedly not the most notable organization itself, but helps establish the niche prominence). Madsen's books have also received numerous reviews in scholarly journals (a JSTOR search yields over 200 hits in total), and not simple cursory, anodyne reviews: one reviewer writing in The Journal of American History notes: "Madsen has a tendency to repeat himself, and topics seem indiscriminately scattered throughout"[3]. With multiple secondary reviews of his works, credible testament to his role as educator and scholar, and over 7,000 library holdings on WorldCat there is adequate available material to satisfy WP:GNG and create a neutral, reliably-sourced article without any original research. We need not base this deletion decision solely on WP:PROF. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The books are sufficient to meet WP:AUTHOR. As for WP:PROF, For an historian, notability is proven by the publication of academic books from major publishers. The problem here isthat many of the publications listed, though published by a university press, are not necessarily academic books. Most university presses, especially state university presses in the US normally publish not only academic books, but books about the local area that may be indistinguishable from those of general publishers, often as coffee-table books. (The university library I know best, Princeton, which collects exhaustively all academic books of potential interest, for this reason does not automatically buy everything from all university presses). I have not examined this list in enough detail, but some seem to be of this nature; if all are, they would not meet WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Prolific author and historian, a widely cited authority in his field of research and publication. Softlavender (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NAUTHOR as a publishing academic. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep Boompoint22 (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moved to Draft. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC) Now at Draft:Games_for_the_Many butyou can move it within draft per editorial consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Games for the Many[edit]

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

Founded only 11 months ago - fails WP:SUSTAINED. References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Edwardx (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Edwardx: you are definitely right about the general passing reference/quotation bit - the gamesindustrybiz is the only reference not to fall afoul of that, I feel. I would not say that it violates WP:SUSTAINED to a sufficiently strong degree to necessitate deletion on that ground. I am ambivalent about this particular article, but was surprised not to see a CorbynRun page - many of the issues about the referencing issue would go away and it certainly would be more deserving of a page that numerous other comparable ones. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to CorbynRun. The article refers to a lot of references that are actually for the game. Video Game developers are rarely notable (Especially only making one game), but the actual game they produced naturally got a lot of press. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As we've noted CorbynRun would be a better location, but this couldn't just be dropped in as-is - a fairly significant re-formatting/deletion would be needed to make it fit that category. Just wanted to note that in the hope that we don't recommend the creation of an article that would itself be AfDed Nosebagbear (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd prefer a merge but can't find a good location, so failing that rename as per above. Szzuk (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 01:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to CorbynRun to formalise my viewpoint in my comment. Obviously some trimming needed when it does. I assume that moving a page actually undergoing AfD is either impossible or distinctly frowned upon. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see this Draftified under the name of the video game (and/or submitted to AFC afterwhich). It's not obvious to me that the video game meets the bar for WP:GNG (a few of the sources in the article aren't obviously reliable (or are obviously unreliable)), but even if it does, this article needs a significant rewrite to clearly be about that topic rather than the producing organization. --Izno (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the draftify argument on the "not appropriate as is" case, but I would have thought that draftifying under a different name was inappropriate - a name change is substantial, and would defeat the grounds for something to be userfyed. I would say if we do draftify, leave as-is, and drop an extended message with our thoughts. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, no reason we can't decide to rename the page now (except perhaps some WP:BURO objection that doesn't come to mind)--we should leave a message either way. My notion was Draft:CorbynRun, not a userfied draft. --Izno (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see Nosebagbear (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 11:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Asad Chaudhry (Journalist)[edit]

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

Journalists are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:JOURNALIST. The article claim he authored a book but I found it non-notable (at least by WP standard). Search produce stories the subject has done for Pakistani newspaper Daily Times but doesn't produce any coverage in independent RS about himself so fails to meet basic GNG. Saqib (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can only find article by him, none about him. Nor can i find any coverage of his book. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article doesn’t even present a prima facie case for notability. Husounde (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) KingAndGod 16:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siddhartha (American rock band)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. There are no reliable sources that discuss the band significantly. It is also a violation of WP:V as no sources support any of the statement in the article. KingAndGod 07:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is coverage, such as: https://www.metrotimes.com/detroit/well-get-the-airwaves/Content?oid=2186799 https://www.popmatters.com/159406-siddhartha-if-it-die-2495844865.html http://magnetmagazine.com/2012/04/16/mp3-at-3pm-siddhartha/ https://consequenceofsound.net/2012/05/album-review-siddhartha-if-it-die/ https://beatsperminute.com/media/bpm-video-premiere-siddartha-sometimes-you-get-so-alone-it-just-makes-sense/ Ross-c (talk) 15:24, 29 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Najm Us Saqib[edit]

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

Diplomats are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:GNG per Wikipedia:Diplomatic notability. Steps were taken to locate coverage in indepdent RS WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful, unfortunately. Saqib (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reason suggested above is invalid as the article is not here because this person is a diplomat. This article is about a popular Urdu poet, who has published poetry books in Urdu and Spanish (4 poetry books). He has written novels in Urdu and English language. His work is recognised with prestigious awards. He has been a very popular TV and radio host. His face book page has 30,000 followers. Being a diplomat is what he does to earn his living. Article is written with the intention of giving information about this author to the readers of Urdu poetry and Literature. Hopefully my honourable editor above will take this into consideration and help me to improve this article by suggesting edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rukhsanachoudhry (talk • contribs) — Note to closing admin: User:Rukhsanachoudhry is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Are you trying to impersonate or what? [4]. Anyway, I'm afraid the subject fails WP:AUTHOR as well. --Saqib (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was an error of unfamiliarity with commands. Please forgive.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rukhsanachoudhry (talk • contribs) 21:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep has been Pakistan's ambassador to various countries. Some coverage in English of his diplomatic activities and writings. I assume there is more in Urdu. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article cites many unreliable and non-independent references (I've removed some but the article still cite some non-independent references) and there's a lot of original research. Google search does not produce anything significant coverage about the person, even in Urdu language. Basically fails to meet basic GNG which says we need "Significant coverage which addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Unfortunately based on the cited and available RS, a standalone BLP cannot be created. The BLP is essentially promotion for the subject. --Saqib (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. http://www.thediplomaticsociety.co.za/archive/archive/2079-najm-us-saqibs-novel-baoo-launched-in-south-africa https://tribune.com.pk/story/658778/bilateral-relations-ambitious-to-strengthen-ties-with-south-africa/ http://www.mofa.gov.pk/brazil/pr-details.php?prID=5337 Ross-c (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've to disagree that GNG passes. First reference (thediplomaticsociety.com) discuss the book of the subject. Second reference (tribune.com.pk) is mention in passing. Third reference a press release by the Embassy of Brazil so it is not even independent of the subject and is primary source. I would say The standard set for sources to support claims within an article is a lower standard than that for sources to establish notability. --Saqib (talk) 07:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline keep. per other users. M A A Z T A L K 03:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unimpressive sourcing and the keep arguments are more hopeful than policy based. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not see coverage that is sufficiently in depth and from sufficiently weighty sources for this to clear the GNG threshold. Vanamonde (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV as a poet or as a diplomat.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 11:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 228[edit]

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

Source indicated in the article do not support content. A WP:BEFORE found no source announced this event - WP:CYRSTAL and fails WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Considering who the article creator thinks will be in the fight, WP:MADEUP. As usual, wait for PR before creating. Nate • (chatter) 00:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently the article has been blanked, but when I look at the earlier versions there's a lot of speculation and unsupported claims. I have no objection to the article being recreated when actual information from reliable sources can be added. Papaursa (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tarek Hijazi[edit]

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

Editor of About Her - yet to see if this online magazine even meets WP's notability criteria on magazine or web. This is another debate but BLP surely fails basic GNG. Search doesn't produce any substantial information about the person so Can't see any significance. Some of the cited sources are not even reliable enough, some are non-independent of the subject - abouther.com. On a related note, @WikiDan61: PROD this BLP however the creator of the page removed the tag so let's discuss it here. Saqib (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that this person has been the subject of significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am new to Wikipedia, and I am not certain if I am eligible to vote on this -- especially since I am the author of the proposed page -- so please bear with me. To answer your query about the website, it is legitimate, and recently won the WAN-IFRA award for best new startup ^[1]. I apologize to have removed the 'proposed delete' tag earlier, I was encouraged to do so by Wikipedia, so I though it would be okay to remove and explain. I did not mean to offend. More importantly, the person shares the same name with a model who is also known, so there is some confusion on Google. I thought this would be a way to clarify between the two. I also intend to create a page for the model with references. The journalist is a contributor to Askmen.com, one of the biggest entertainment websites in the world, and his interviews and features have been published on Conde Nast Traveler, GQ, Harper's Bazaar and other top magazines. I am new and willing to learn and become a better Wiki contributor, so please help me understand how to make this, and other future articles better. Thank you. JenniferCraigCarter (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://events.wan-ifra.org/events/middle-eastern-digital-media-awards/content/1583

- @JenniferCraigCarter: Yes, you are allowed to comment here as the author of the page; in fact, you are encouraged to do so to bring facts to bear that might not be obvious to other editors here. And yes, you were well within Wikipedia policy to remove the Proposed Deletion tag; that's all part of the deletion process. All that being said, I don't think you've done enough to convince us that this person merits inclusion at Wikipedia. The confusion of names with another celebrity is unfortunate, but it is up to you as the page's author to provide the sources needed to verify this person's notability. The AFD process runs for seven days at a minimum, so you'll have some time to gather sources if you can. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @WikiDan61: Thank you, I will do my best to get more information available. Should I share them here once I do, or should I just make the updates to the Journalist's page directly? Please let me know. Thank you! JenniferCraigCarter (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @JenniferCraigCarter: If you find more sources, add them to the article, and then mention the updates here so that the people watching this discussion can re-evaluate. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I couldn't find evidence of notability separate from the magazine, which I believe is notable. Ross-c (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ross-c: You mean merge and delete or merge and redirect. I'm happy with merge and delete but not with merge and redirection because having redirection on non-notable figures does not make sense to me. Please clarify your position. --Saqib (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: I would prefer merge and redirect. My reason is that it's better if people searching for Tarek Hijazi are redirected to the magazine page, rather than nowhere at all. Ross-c (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ross-c: But it always hold the risk of page getting re-created. And Guess what the magazine's notablity can be easily questioned. I don't see it passing Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Newspapers,_magazines_and_journals. --Saqib (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: The notability of the magazine is a separate issue. I would think that a redirect would not significantly increase the probability of the article being recreated. Even if it did, I still think that a redirect is the better option.Ross-c (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ross-c: I hope you don't mind this AfD : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/About Her, but it's very important to get rid of non-notable stuff. Feel free to comment as you like. --Saqib (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: I have just responded to the 'About Her' AfD on the given page. Please refer to it for reevaluation. On another note, further to Tarek's biography, I'll have to argue about the notability of Askmen.com. It is among the the top 10,000 websites globally. That's a major feat. Tarek contributes to the site as a celebrity interviewer and his works were then syndicated to multiple print publishers around the world, and in multiple languages, via The Interview People. You can tell by the looks of his personal social media accounts here, and here, that he tends to keep a low-profile. But as someone who works with celebrities, and is constantly being quoted, I think it is justified to consider him of interest to the public. I have added more references to his Wikipedia page for reevaluation. Please have a look.

Note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Butch.labajo. --Saqib (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any coverage of this subject. And COI promotion should not be encouraged. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain if it is acceptable to cast a second vote after an article has been relisted for discussion, so please ignore if that is the case. Otherwise, as author, I think that, aside from the sufficient sources already referenced on the actual article (most of which are from giant publishers), Wikipedia also encourages authors to argue based on common sense. The notion that Tarek engages celebrities and other people of public interest, makes him a subject of interest to the public, and therefore, this page serves to address that interest. JenniferCraigCarter (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't !vote twice. --Saqib (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Sorry. Vote removed.

Note More updates made to the page (with references) about his work on Instagram. JenniferCraigCarter (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. So Why 11:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Hena Rony[edit]

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

Actors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:ACTORS.. Subject also does not appear to meet GNG and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Saqib (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Winner of the most notable international stand-up comedy competition held accross Bengal. Arman ^(Talk) 04:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per this he was joint-winner and it is not some "most notable international stand-up comedy competition" as you claim. --Saqib (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Notable comedian. Sources can be found in English and Bengali. Also came to attention with a controversial post about the Prime Minister of Bangladesh. He was sued by the police.

https://www.bbc.com/bengali/news-39900767 - Mar11 (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Opinions differed, but the consensus seems to be that there is enogh sourcing here to establish notability. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Capri Everitt[edit]

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

Child Guinness record-holder, and worthy fund-raiser etc, but really nothing encyclopedic. PamD 16:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article is not encyclopedic and was possibly started by the person who the article is about (a big cause for concern). Unless it is improved upon, it probably needs to be deleted. Wpgbrown (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be quite a few news stories with significant coverage about this subject including international coverage as well as Canada, US, India, Ireland and others available. I added a cross section of references to the article, including one titled, 16 Girls Who Changed The World". She was #9. This article passes WP:GNG and should be kept and expanded. Z359q (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as many sources are out there, so GNG is established. (As a general rule I think that parents who allow their children to become media personalities are creepy.)104.163.158.37 (talk) 06:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Times of India and HuffPost have featured plus achievement is significant. Would pass gng. Globe2trotter (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. entirely promotional, to the extent that I have listed it for G11, to see if another admin agrees with me. Huff Post is useless as a source for notability , and the same is true for all Indian newspapers if the articles have anything to do with entertainment. The rest of the matrerial is mentions and PR. DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. I was not convinced till I saw the ToI article was about a 13 yo boy. It has nothing to do with the subject of this page. This page is just a puff piece w/o notability.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several sources have been added to the article since the last argument. Relisting to give time for evaluation of these sources, as DGG had done with the previous.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Can we please delete this promotional biography about a non-notable person? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep. I went through the references in the article, and she passes WP:GNG. The article looks promotional, but that is a matter for WP:SOFIXIT. Ross-c (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I improved the article and added more citations. This person easily passes WP:GNG for significant discussion in reliable, secondary sources. Additionally, the Guinness award would likely pass WP:ANYBIO for "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor." Given all the coverage of her international music tour, she also passes WP:NMUSIC for "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" and "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" and "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network" (as her performances were televised in many countries). Lonehexagon (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about the award: I personally do not believe that a "Guiness World Record" is a significant award for honor. Getting a "Guiness World Record" does not require having done anything honorful, it just requires doing something as weird or silly as possible so that you're the only person in the world to have done this thing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of Wikipedia is to document what people find notable, as measured by significant coverage in secondary, independent, reliable sources. It indicates notability to receive public recognition for completing something no one else can do, then having your name and information published in a popular, international book. Additionally, I gave two other reasons I think she's notable enough to pass the guidelines, even if you believe the Guinness World Record does not pass WP:ANYBIO. Her record took nine months to complete, and was followed from beginning to end. She easily passes WP:GNG for significant coverage, and WP:NMUSIC for her music tour that received extensive coverage in multiple countries. Lonehexagon (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with emphasis. Several dedicated articles in major news outlets, which are rock sold reliable sources. IMLTHO, nothing more need be said. Tapered (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, keep. My disagreement with the notability of a Guinness World Record award, and the promotional nature of the article, are not sufficient as arguments against notability here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree:, if you are changing your !vote, would you please strike your previous one? Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I thought that this is probably an archived section of the discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:45, 30 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brookfield Theatre for the Arts[edit]

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

0 indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG in any way. Strictly promo John from Idegon (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly I am not creating this site for promotion, as I am not a representative of the Brookfield Theatre for the Arts in any way (referencing my years of experience making various edits to an assortment of articles on Wikipedia). This theatre is not only housed in a historic school building that holds significant history to the area, but is also a notable landmark in that it houses a notable production company. I feel this proposal for deletion is inappropriate for these reasons, and rather than request for a deletion of the page, a notice requesting more references at the top would be sufficient.--AirportExpert (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how something made in 1880s and converted in 1950s is promotional. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- When I see an article for a commercial venture that is virtually entirely self sourced, when I see language used that is reflected from the article in the creator's comment above, I see promotional. There is nothing inherently notable about a building being old, I found 0 sources discussing the place in detail, it's not on any registries. All searches found was announcements of events there, or bits marginally connected to events held there. None of the events were particularly notable. In short, all we've got is a theater being a theater. Now if you've got offline sources that can sufficiently develop a reasonable article, that's all good...that's what we have draftspace and userspace for. There's no reason to put an article in mainspace that has no more in it than the place exists and they are proud of that. John from Idegon (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here is a 2007 article from the Danbury News-Times discussing this community theatre's 50th anniversary and attesting in some detail to its status as a significant local cultural institution. [5] I question whether this is enough by itself to get over the notability bar as it's currently being enforced, but it's a start, anyway. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since the nomination for deletion was posted, several references were added indicating notability through past events which are held here, all of which are significant to the local area. These references are from credible news sources that are entirely independent of the theatre, and sources are continuing to be added to go above and beyond what is required to establish notability. All of the problems that were addressed have now been amended, thus entirely establishing notability of the subject matter.--AirportExpert (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

Keep the former school and the theater in its renovated gymnasium are both notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ ~~Delete: See change of !vote comments below~~ Keep: See 2nd change comments below; To the existing Brookfield Center Historic District (Brookfield, Connecticut). Since the article already exists and the building is included in the historic district this would be the proper place to include the article content per the source: National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet (section 7 page 13) and livingplaces.com Historical Background section, 4th paragraph (behind the library at 184 Whisconier Road). Otr500 (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I could support a very selective merge to the district, emphasis on the history and only a passing mention of the current theatre operation, per WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK. Still seeing no notability for the theatre, but approaching something for the structure. If this were to be kept, I'd suggest the name of the school to be the appropriate title of the article. John from Idegon (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the creator of this article, I acknowledge that without the history of the building and school the theater would possess limited notability to justify a Wikipedia article. Although the school may possess more historical notability than the theater, the existence of the theater is also what gives the school enough notability for a Wikipedia article in my opinion. Since the current use of the site is as a theater, I would advocate that the page title remain as is. If anyone were to do any further inquiry into either the school or the theater, there is significantly more information about the school coming from websites pertaining to the theater than from any other sources. This solution not only eliminates confusion for anyone conducting research, but also allows two topics that possess degrees of notability to be included on Wikipedia. I also redirected "Curtis School for Boys" to this page.--AirportExpert (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

Delete Just a WP:ROTM community theatre, which exists in many cities and towns across the good old US of A. The building is notable as a part of the "collection" in the historic district, but not really in and of itself. Acnetj (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While the theatre alone may not meet the threshold of notability, I would argue that the school does (thus making the building notable as well). I made my case earlier for what I believe the article should be titled, but I would be open to a page move from "Brookfield Theatre for the Arts" to "Curtis School for Boys", if it came down to the article being merged or deleted simply over the name.--AirportExpert (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

~~Comments on change of delete !vote above~~ See below; I would have expected no less. I don't see anyone arguing that the building does not have notability. It is listed, as a group listing, which is from the nominator/town/etc..., that already has an article. However, as closers sometimes just count votes instead of !vote comments I have changed my "!vote" to prevent a "no consensus" since there is no stand-alone notability for the subject. Otr500 (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Charming old & historic building. Defunct school in which it is located has some notability. Some of the sources already on the page support notability. And some of the Theatre's productions are covered in the New York Times, as well as the Danbury and Bridgeport papers (easier to see in a good news archive).E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
search tip try both theatRE and theatER. The good, grey New YOrk times routinely misspells it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting hits in books [6], [7], [8].E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so, article needs to link to Virgil Geddes, on whom an article ought to be written NYTimes obit here: Virgil Geddes Is Dead; Ex-Playwright Was 92. Here is the search onhis name inthe YTimes archive [9]. I presume he was blacklisted for being part of the League of American Writers - bit of a career-killer, that. However, he founded in ~1931 a theatrical retreat in Brookfield that spawned this "Theatre". I think this should be closed now as keep, and the article improved. However, if it gets extended for a week, the 1907 rustic or craftsman-style building should be looked into and the AfD listed under architecture-related. There must be sourcing on a building that looks like this in a posh corner of Connecticut.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you think the school is notable for some reason to deserve an article, why not just start working on it and merge or redirect this article. I would like to know whether the school itself is indeed notable or not. Acnetj (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If because you think it is notable because of the theater's relationship with its founder, why not just redirect to the founder. Are there other reasons for notability beyond that one person? And now an article has been created about him and frankly just by reading that article I don't see anything notable about him either. Acnetj (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This theater: its history and its building are notable in several ways - I had improved the article and sourcing, and, although it could be improved further, I think notability has been established. It is more functional to have an article than to redirect to either the defunct school; or to the historic district; or to any one notable person associated with the theater. I note also that the productions have long been and continue to be covered in the major regional dailies (New York Times, Hartford Courant, Connecticut Post in addition to the The News-Times. I suspect that the nomination sprang not only from the fact that article was new and brief, but from the fact that the theater is old and has operated under varying names.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Don, how do we access the National Register listing for this building/District? Link seems to be dead and I'm having trruble finding it by searching. ThaksE.M.Gregory (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's something temporarily wrong with the National Park Service's indirect links to NRHP listing documents. To get the 1990 document written by David Ransom (used as source in the Brookfield Center Historic District (Brookfield, Connecticut) article, which I guess I created or edited), try this direct link for the text and this direct link for photos for now (found via going to https://npgallery.nps.gov/AssetDetail/NRIS/91000992 first). The text doesn't discuss a theater but does discuss school buildings. --Doncram (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is past and current history going on with this building and current theater organization, a community center of sorts. It is apparently a contributing building in a NRHP-listed historic district, and we have articles about many others like that. It is not as completely obvious a "Keep" as if the building was separately NRHP-listed on its own, but there are mentions in multiple sources and coverage that adds up. --Doncram (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Also, it is a community theatre, which basically IMHO should qualify it. I have commented before that we need to have wp:TOURISTATTRACTION (currently a redlink), probably as an essay first, towards becoming a formal guideline, to cover the obvious significance (including repeated mentions in guidebooks and event calendars) for items like this. --Doncram (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2nd change of !vote comments: This is funny and charming but I now agree we should "keep" per above change of !vote. Being a "Charming old & historic building" is not a valid criteria nor is my new favorite statement; the "past and current history" comment. I guess this is the recording of current time that elapses in attoseconds so is history while still on-going? I provided a link that I guess was missed that leads to the descriptive page of the buildings (Curtis School built a gymnasium (1907), 184 Whisconier Road) included in the "group" historic listing.

Reason for Keep !vote: I have no valid policy or guideline rationale for keep but neither do the other keep !votes (over merge to the current NRHP parent article), as sometimes only headcounts and "I like it" actually do matter. There is already a parent article and no clear reason or need for a split. As it stands, with the exception of being a tourist attraction (currently per policy this would be against 3 instances of What Wikipedia is not), the encyclopedic notability is tied to being NRHP listed. It seems we might want one particular building pulled out of a list that includes 67 contributing buildings that "already" has the "current" Brookfield Center Historic District (Brookfield, Connecticut) article, supported by sources as "contributing buildings" and in need of expanding. I do contribute to historical buildings so we should keep since on reflection, "I like it" and it gives thousands of more possibilities. On that note and my main new rationale for keep: The town of Roxbury has a "group listing" of 32 buildings on the NRHP. The Bridgewater, Connecticut Center Historic District has 60 historic buildings. Newtown Historic District (also needing expanding) has an astounding "225 contributing buildings, 2 other contributing structures, 1 contributing site, and 2 contributing objects.". There are more in Southbury. These are only the ones around Lake Lillinonah and a total of 1,500 in the state. That is a lot of promising red-links. I am thinking we just forget the parent articles and start several hundred (thousand) individual stubs linking to the now very stub parent articles for deorphaning. New stubs over expanding current articles actually counts more when looking at the stats of article coverage Wikipedia offers (looks far better right?) and some editors can see their dreams that all things in the world deserve a stand-alone article. I am game to game the system so let's do this and close as keep otherwise I will be forced to change my !vote yet again (back to: there is already an article for inclusion) if another "merge" or "delete" (because it doesn't belong here) shows up. For the actual record: I really don't mind there being an article but it should only be after an agreed upon split because of parent article getting too big. Otr500 (talk) 09:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Building description: Per NRHP description page (section number 7 page 13 shown above); C 184 Whisconier Rd, (69-9, 25) 1907 Curtis School Gymnasium. sign on 1-story rubble-stone hipped-roof Rustic/ building Arts-and-Crafts building with diagonally glazed wooden casement windows. Wide roof overhang is supported by large paired scrolled brackets. Rubble-stone chimneys. Now Brookfield Playhouse. (Photograph 13). This corresponds to the current address of the building. Otr500 (talk) 09:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just mentioning that a community theater has long occupied the building. The theatre has existed for over 6 decades, and its notable predecessor organization existed for the three previous decades (transition - which took place in the 1950s - may have been related to the fact that Brookfield resident and theatre founder Virgil Geddes was blacklisted by the UnAmerican Affairs Committee). I could wish @Spartaz: had felt able to close this before it became surprisingly over-heated for an article about a small theatre that performs in an old building with a bit of rustic charm.13:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk)[reply]

Reply: You have mentioned the building in what seems to be a smug way "an old building with a bit of rustic charm" and I have not been there. I have history and the fact that no matter what has transpired "in the building" the fact that the history is connected "to the building" has remained unchanged. These historic buildings need to be preserved because they are a tangeble history that can be touched, admired in many cases, and even walked through. Some people have no qualms with destroying these historic buildings or even statues as though history should fade away. I hope that is not you. I realize what you are stating, do not disagree with some points, and see improvements you have effected but can you not see confusion? This is not an article actually (as currently presented) about a community theater venue, being a collaborative form of fine art, entertainment, community productions, or even about the organization that hosts a theater, but more about a building with mentioning of diverse forms of theater art held within. The images are of "buildings", the lead content states, "The theater has a capacity of 135 people...", the history has some about the school but more about the building, and the "theater" (arts) section is relegated to the bottom before the references. Trying to muster notability, especially with the current content, for an organization would fail WP:notability, GNG, and even the lessor Notability. Some of the current sourcing (not historical or about the building) do add what can be seen as promotion. Apparently the the "community theater" published the works of Virgil Geddes from 1932 to 1934 and the House Un-American Activities Committee was formed in 1938. The "blacklisting" affected hollywood writers and stars more after 1947. If he was blacklisted sometimes after 1938 this would be at least four years after leaving the subject "theater". I can't see how this would be of importance to a "community theater in any way except someone "famous" was there. As far as I can see the man worked as a postmaster that was not affected by any "list" as for as Brookfield is concerned.

I really am trying to get a handle on something that seems straight-forward but that plain English (British or American) does not seem to clarify. I can understand you wanting to record the "community theater" but then every non-descript "theater" in every town, with unknown participants, performing community renditions of community or famous plays and a couple of sources (usually one primary source will suffice especially if historical) would qualify for stand-alone status and any process to correct this takes 50 times longer than creating the article. This is why it has become acceptable to just create articles about everything in the world because if local consensus can win, maybe a lack of participants, or COI interference if all else fails, a lot of articles enjoy very long extended terms sometimes with ZERO sources and are argued as WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. I stated I am alright with this article but there is "clear" community accepted consensus for NRHP buildings that usually have multiple acceptable sources, are historical, and very much tangible recording of history, as well as currently notable. Creating these "added stubs" means there will be unnecssary duplication because any sourced content in articles like this could not be contested in a NRHP article. In this case the NRHP listing, that was submitted by the town to have a "historic district" (maybe there is town or city tax breaks) listed all these buildings in a group as many in the state have done.

The Brookfield Center Historic District (Brookfield, Connecticut) article was creaed 20/6/2008 and this article 4/4/2018. My reasoning, that has failed to get an acceptable reply, is why try to fork these articles instead of doing what we are suppose to do and expand the parent article which can cover the building and various uses when the encyclopedic notability is not that strong. When an article gets too big (usually with a better rating than start) consensus can decide an acceptable fork. If there is some actual benefit to creating multiple hundreds (or thousands) of stub or start articles over a better possibly c-class article let me know. If it is valid I will stop creating actual "start-class" articles out the gate and just make referenced stubs. Other than that I CANNOT see a plus benefit to the rationale. The bottom line, sarcasm aside, I am on your side (you saw that right) just not happy that we cannot just make good articles over stubby-stubs or lower start-class articles. I am just as passionate about historic buildings, structures, and even statues as you appear to be about a venue but I do support such areas of history. Good luck and have a nice day, Otr500 (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources have been produced in this discussion demonstrating the notability of the building, the school and the theater group. It might be possible to merge some of this content elsewhere but that is a discussion that can take place outside of AfD inasmuch no consensus has developed here. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd say it's time to close this discussion as a "keep". The idea that the Brookfield Theatre for the Arts is notable enough for its own independent page appears to be the overall consensus of the discussion. Any proposals to merge/duplicate specific information at this point should be made in a new section on the talk page of this article, as well as the talk page of the Brookfield Center Historic District. --AirportExpert

That comment was by AirportExpert, the article creator and first "Keep" voter. I agree. I voted "keep" above. --Doncram (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Michas[edit]

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

After a thorough WP:BEFORE search, all I've been able to find are entries in various Wiki-type sites, an IMDB entry and other sites based purely on user-generated content. I was expecting to see at least one news mention - after all, this article is many years old - but no, there's nothing. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability requirements for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actors are not handed an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because roles are listed in the article — having acting roles is the job description, not "inherent" notability in and of itself. It's not the list of roles that makes an actor includable in and of itself, but the depth of reliable source coverage about him in media that can be shown to get him over WP:GNG for having had roles. But there are no proper references being cited here at all, and I'm having about as much luck as the nominator at finding anything better. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 29 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. So Why 11:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Hetsroni[edit]

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

~~Not really notable and seems to be created and edited by one user, likely the figure itself WP:COIN. --Bohbye (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

After further reading on the subject of the article i agree with Icewhiz and Bellezzasolo that he meets GNG, BIO, and BLP1E. Therefore I withdraw my nomination for deletion. I do think however it needs some rewriting and more than a single author. --Bohbye (talk) 08:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Obviously not a COIN - which wouldn't describe him as "misanthropic" (which I shall remove). This is a very well known individual (for his divisive and unorthodox views expressed in a very public fashion) - with quite wide coverage - particularly in Hebrew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs) 07:02, 29 Apr 2018 (UTC)

Strong Keep. I wrote most of the entry. I am an Israeli, but I have no COIN here. It is enough to read the tone of my words to notice that. The name of Hetsroni appeared in the list of entries that were deemed needed. He is very famous in Israel - more as a public figure than as a pure scientist. I tried to point that in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orenberg 1 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable Facebook troublemaker who has apparently hired someone to write about him. The author has never edited Wikipedia before. As far as I can see, all he is notable for is being fired from Ariel University --Geewhiz (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Well, Troublemakers can be important.... Read here what a fuss his departure from Israel caused: https://www.timesofisrael.com/provocateur-amir-hetsroni-quits-israel/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orenberg 1 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-well-known - preceeding comment added by 77.241.229.232.

Keep My grasp of hebrew isn't good, but has generated significant coverage in multiple reliable hebrew sources, as well as English. Seems to meet GNG and BIO, and I think given published works goes beyond BLP1E. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We need to be careful to avoid making this into an attack page, but in-depth coverage specifically about him in IHE 2014 (footnote 4), JPost 2015 (footnote 14), INN 2018 (footnote 18), and ToI 2015 (Orenberg's link above), not to mention potentially others that I can't read because they're not in English, makes clear that he is notable on an ongoing basis. We probably shouldn't close this early despite the withdraw because of the delete comments, but the case looks clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex[edit]

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

A fringe theory with 99% refs from primary sources by the author and 2-3 followers. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only a handful of GS citations to this work. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Just not enough evidence that this has had any uptake — it's almost too obscure to have even been criticized. XOR'easter (talk) 21:04, 29 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 Bus#Motor buses. So Why 11:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Motor bus[edit]

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

Effectively mirroring Bus. If not deleted may I suggest merging into Bus? CrossHouses (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redirect, limited merge to Bus#Motor buses Well, not exactly mirroring; the article has a coulle of good refs (underutilized, though), but merge must be careful, for not to merge the OR. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bus#Motor_buses, no merge, the destination info is far more comprehensive and referenced than what is in this article. Szzuk (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beowulf (British band)[edit]

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

Just another possibly non-existent music band created by this user. The other one is In Through the Out Door (band). Did a google search with the keyword David Johnson "Beowulf" band etc. and nothing related shows up. Completely unreferenced, can't verify its existence. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Someone please tell spanish tea sauce to stop making bunk articles. --Jessietail (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I politely told the user to please stop making stuff up at his/her talk page. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They did it again --Jessietail (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a community we are on the case. I attempted to nominate that article for speedy deletion, while you were doing the same yourself! ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: 100% a hoax... no information anywhere about this supposed band, no evidence of any albums, let alone ones that charted, no evidence of TV appearances... Bear in mind that if they really had started out in the late 1960s, they would have been among the very first hard rock/metal bands anywhere, along with Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin - it's inconceivable that we wouldn't have heard of them if they really had been as well known as the article suggests. Richard3120 (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (possibly speedy as a hoax) - This band does not exist and the article creator needs to be informed that Wikipedia is not for stuff you just made up. And just for giggles, it turns out that an artist named David Johnson sells overpriced paintings of scenes from Beowulf [10]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:44, 30 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. So Why 11:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Frank[edit]

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

No individual notability, except for her company, and already covered more than adequately there. DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note there are profiles of here in Fast Company [11] and Jezebel [12] Theredproject. (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems relevant that the FC article calls her "notoriously elusive and private" which is likely why we don't have any major biographical profiles. I checked NYT, and there are a dozen+ references. The first is 2000, and then in 2011 it starts again, and there is one or two a year, or so. They name check her without explanation, as if you should know who she is, e.g. "Just a decade or two later, I’m ready to reminisce about Lisa Frank folders and Puff Daddy videos." [13] And, for a certain generation of people (slightly younger than myself) they mostly all do know who she is, and what her work looks like.

I appreciate your logic re: the person being described in the article about the company, but I'm wondering if there are any standards or comparables for something like that. I've been racking my brain trying to come up with any other examples of designers who were 1) reclusive 2) named their companies with their own name. I'm still thinking, but haven't come up with any. Theredproject (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic, but Martin Margiela for example? Vexations (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to company. Best covered there. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the two AfDs already completed, it's a bit daft to nominate the article for a third time. The existing reliable sources in the article strongly suggest she had a very high profile in the latter part of the 20th century. We shouldn't be deleting articles about people who have a lower profile in the internet age. All that being said, there are further news articles particularly about Frank on the Lisa Frank Incorporated article. Just because her name happens to be included in the name of her company, doesn't mean they aren't both notable. Sionk (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or, as an alternative, keep as its own section at Lisa Frank Incorporated, as is done with the company founder at Transogram.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If ,the kept, the necessary next step will be to remove the material about her from the company article--it's presently about40% of the content. Duplication like this is indicative of promotionalism; even if not intended as such, it is certainly undue coverage. It can be appropriate for very famous companies & their founders, but not those which are only notable, let alone borderline notable /. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 11:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CoCo and the Butterfields[edit]

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

Non notable band, No evidence of notability, Fails BAND and GNG –Davey2010^Talk 19:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:22, 28 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. So Why 11:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Morayo Awosola[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Poorly sourced with unverifiable sources or sources. Likely promotional article. hiàn 18:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hikaru Hoshino[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. Being listed as "one of" other similar actors by a nn "adult video (AV) columnist Kemuta Ōtsubo" is an insufficient claim of significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability requirements for pornographic performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, hasn't won any notable or significant awards, fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 13:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC) –Davey2010^Talk 18:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 11:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Labes family[edit]

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

As I've discussed at Talk:Labes family, I find no evidence that the family of Jef Labes has become notable as a family unit. There's no coverage of "Labes family" online, nor any indication of individual notability of any members of the family other than Jef Labes. The one source cited (with no specific inline references to it) is from 2003, when only one child in the family was over 12 and Bright Antenna didn't exists, so at best there's a lot in the article that it doesn't verify, it seems highly unlikely that it could give an impression of the family's notability back then, and it can't support a finding of notability having developed after 2003. Largoplazo (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no indication of notability, and the article appears to be untrue. This contradicts the claim that they are wealthy -- -- it's about benefit concert to raise money for the family -- and a search for Eva Labes's membership on the board of directors for Sandals Resorts returns no results.JSFarman (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. If that Sonoma News article is true—if this article's claim as to their wealth is false and they're in the position of needing to raise funds to cover Eva's medical expenses—then this article actually stands to harm them. It could give detractors who believe whatever they read online the idea that the fundraiser amounts to rich people begging for money to cover their own expenses. Largoplazo (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just last June, a user with the name of one of Labes' kids, User:TheodoreLabes, at the Jef Labes article, estimated Labes' wealth to be "somewhere between 20 and 3 million dollars".[14] User:WillowTree70079 changed this to a "net worth is $25 million".[15] Then, just this month, the latter user upped it first to $75 million,[16] then to $175 million,[17] then to $525 million.[18]

Here's the punchline: User:TheodoreLabes was created 2017-06-17 02:41. This user then made five edits to Jef Labes, and hasn't edited since under that name, making it a single-purpose account. Then, User:WillowTree70079 was created 2017-06-17 02:57—16 minutes after TheodoreLabes was created, and three minutes after TheodoreLabes' last edit. WillowTree70079 is virtually a single-purpose account, having veered away from the Jef Labes – Bright Antenna arc only for one edit to Travis Kalanick— for the purpose of changing the reported amount of Kalanick's net worth.

It would be hard to argue that TheodoreLabes and WillowTree70079 aren't the same person. If they are Theo Labes, Jef Labes' kid mentioned in his personal bio who was 6 in 2009, then this is all a matter of a 15-year-old family member messing around. Largoplazo (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just posted a note about this on WillowTree's talk page. Largoplazo (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet notability requirements for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a genealogy website. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. So Why 11:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Alderfer[edit]

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

Alderfer has only had one role that might be significant, she lacks multiple roles that are notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She was also in Better Off Single, The Passing Season, Orange is the New Black, Forever, Eye Candy, and The Good Wife. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Entry meets both WP:NACTOR and the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with WP:NPASR. So Why 11:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sepideh Mohammadian[edit]

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

Non-notable writer, no coverage, no reviews, fails GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for a Persian language user to take a look. I found her works on the website of Roshangaran Publisher: http://www.roshangaran-pub.ir/searchbookall and I wonder if there are reliable sources about her in Persian media? MurielMary (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MurielMary It's also up at AFD at fa.wp, so yes, a Persian editor has clearly looked at it. Having published books is pretty meaningless without coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking the Persian language version, that's useful to know. And yes I realise published books alone are insufficient, my meaning above is if there is coverage in Persian-language media. MurielMary (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well considering it's been nominated by a sysop and crat at FA, I'd say they are acutely familiar with notability policies on their own project and sufficiently familiar with the language to have done a cursory check for notability. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She seems to be included in Persian-language media, I added a few more citations today. I did note that it said she is an "up and coming author", however she has had two books published with a large Iranian publishing house and she was able to give a lecture outside of Iran. Jooojay (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep she has notability and meets GNP if we are including sources in Farsi. Considering she is a woman, who is publishing controversial books in Iran and two books of which have been banned from publishing by the Iranian government. I am not surprised we are struggling to find sources in English. Jooojay (talk) 03:23, 30 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 Aldnoah.Zero. So Why 11:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinakes (manga artist)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or any SNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aldnoah.Zero, as their most popular, notable work. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 15:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redirectseems fair as other works don't have any notability and article didn't have any information which will be lost via redirect --Quek157 (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zambian Music Blog[edit]

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

Minor music blog, not yet notable per WP:WEB or WP:GNG. I can't find substantial coverage of it online in WP:Reliable sources: the best I could come up with was passing mentions here and here. It's true that it can be difficult to find sources online for Zambian topics, but a blog should be rather easier. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nominator says It's true that it can be difficult to find sources online for Zambian topics. Very true but that website is very notable in the country Zambia it's not mentioned in other Zambian websites cause people in Zambia don't want to see other process in life and so the fact that it even has other sites as refs not only minor mentions its a big deal in such a case in Zambia you can mark my words on that. By the way this has been here since 2016 where is ther people reviewed it he should be questioned for letting it pass after 2yrs. I think just let it be. ChaloNiZambia (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC) — ChaloNiZambia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It's interesting that you should mention the length of time the article has existed as a reason to keep it, because the article's creator replied with something quite similar when the notice of this discussion was given at their talk page, just before you created this account. Are you by any chance the same person? If so, then please take a moment to read WP:Multiple accounts. Thank you. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Mighty Glen same person with who? ChaloNiZambia (talk) 04:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has the same person used the accounts User:ChaloNiZambia and User:Icem4k? The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Mighty Glen No sir am not not even close. My real names are Peter Kasuba do I have to post my ID as proof as well? ChaloNiZambia (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, and thank you Mr. Kasuba for confirming. Another reason I asked is that there seems to be a bit of a bunfight between a small group of editors at Zambian Music Blog and Echo music blog. User:Icem4k, creator of the ZMB article, nominated the EMB article for deletion at WP:Articles for deletion/Echo music blog a few days ago. The creator of the EMB article User:Blessingmuchuu then proposed the ZMB article for deletion on the grounds of the article being promotional: [19]. The two article creators are discussing the matter at Icem4k's talk page, and my rationale for deletion above (on grounds of notability) is now being used by Icem4k at that discussion. You then requested deletion of EMB on the grounds of promotion, at WP:Articles for deletion/Echo music blog, and nearly all your edits so far have been at the two AFD discussions, which is most unusual for a new account. With this in mind, you can surely forgive me for simply asking the question. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Mighty Glen Thank you for that conformation and am happy to clarify that and this is my first official account I used to edit as an unregistered user where the IP address is shown I wanted to comment here and I saw that unregistered users vote will not be counted so I registered that how I got here am just here for clean ups. I have been reading the Wikipedia and its guidelines for sometime now. PK YellowWisdom (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If This article is up to be deleted then should these ones as well:
:# BellaNaija
:# Black20
:# Comedy.com
:# Network2.tv
:# Openfilm
:# Cybergrass
:# Drummerworld This article relies largely or entirely on a single source . (June 2014)
:# FREE!MUSIC only one ref and gets just a warning The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations.
:# Groovera. The list goes on....
:My point is just because he it's African and you want to bring it down I have been reading through and I don't see advertisements type of language it sounds neutral am use he could have written more now even as the nominator has mentioned its hard to get online refs in Zambia funny thing is that it has now some of the sites I have mentioned don't have any which is very sad and also because it's from the Western or European country it stays but if you from Attica or India you people just attack. I hope it will be kept Thank you.ChaloNiZambia (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the nomination was not about the article being promotional, but about its WP:Notability. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ChaloNiZambia: Article subject need substantial coverage in "reliable sources" (independent on the subject of the article and with editorial oversight: eg. published/online magazines with editorial staff would be good sources, mere blogs not; see WP:RS for more info). Best source I see in the article is a passing mention in Zambia Daily Mail, which is not enough to demonstrate "notability". That other articles are bad certainly is not good argument for AfD (see WP:OSE essay). Pavlor (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NWEB. It's just a simple music blog in Zambia. And on google this article ranks number one, not for the blog its self but for the search term "Zambian music" as a result, anyone who looks for Zambian music on wikipedia is redirected to Zambian music blog, which then takes a user to the website. In simple term, this takes visitors from wikipedia to the blog itself. "no reliable sources", apart from a mare mention by another music blog Afrofire.com which could have been arranged for the purpose of this article passing WP:RS.No matter the way it seems there is no way this articles follows the notability, its WP:PROMO in nature we all know that.Megatech15 (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Am the creator of this page and to be honest the time I created this article I didn't think it will make it this far I knew that it will be selected for deletion one day after I read through some of the policies and guidelines that wikipidea has, and as for the vote for delete by Megatech15 that's just a user who is pissed off that I tagged his article for deletion and so since his website EMB and ZMB do kind of the same thing he doesn't want to go down alone so he wants to pull this as well more like saying if I can't be here so should this one and FYI if you check the talk page here you will see that he made a number requests EMB but was declined. As for ChaloNiZambia that's just another typical Zambian type of thinking in line with Megatech15 bring him/her down. I don't even know how this got out of hand. Thank you! Chabota Kanguya (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icem4k: You are right the blogs kind of do the same thing. But this is nothing personal, its about following wikipedia policies and rules. Looking at the articles we all besically had written the same thing and none of this would have happened if you didn't nominate the page for EMB up for deletion in the first place. So what ever happens I am cool with it, but there is no way the article would be deleted and ZMB to remain when it doesn't also follow wikipedia guidelines and fails the WP:NWEB. Just try and improve it because they are no shortcuts with wikipedia when it comes to WP:Notability. Megatech15 13:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blessingmuchuu (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely sourced from combination of unreliable vanity blogs and self-reference. No evidence of notability, no decent sources. The author himself admits he is just testing our understanding of notability to see whether the page will be deleted. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 11:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Creme[edit]

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

Article on anonymous "record producer" who registered a Soundcloud account last year is sourced entirely to RS. A BEFORE search fails to find sufficient RS to enable this to pass GNG. Chetsford (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. Not even close. Husounde (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 11:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Martinez Agras[edit]

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

Non notable musician best known for his work with unknown bands. Could not find anything online or within the article to support any notability criteria. London Hall (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 28 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. So Why 11:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sammie Okposo[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking WP:SECONDARY, in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am sorry but this must be a joke, this is like the topest gospel musician in Nigeria. Obviously didn't do a WP:BEFORE same way Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lanre da Silva was approached.HandsomeBoy (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I suggest you review the requirements for inclusion into Wikipedia. Where are the in-depth, non-trivial supporting articles? The WP:BEFORE review showed such important support as, "Exposed: "'Sammie Okposo Is A Shameless Wife Beater!'", "I’ve no regrets marrying late", and "Some of my friends turned to armed robbery – Sammie Okposo". Hardly in-depth, non-trivial. The articles are PR puff pieces. reddogsix (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is something I have noticed about your editing style. You find it hard to admit that you might have made a mistake, even when you realize it. This makes it difficult for you to learn from it. Please learn to use Google in a more effective manner next time. For the sake of those who are genuinely unfamiliar with him, I'll do the search. Sammie Okposo meets every relevant notability criteria on Wikipedia, from WP:ANYBIO, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. When you speak of relevant awards, Sammie has won Kora Awards, as the best in Africa Africa Kora Awards 2005 winners; Sammie Okposo Wins Best Gospel Award 2014;Sammie Okposo wins NEA Award For Gospel Artiste Of The Year; 2013 Nigeria Entertainment Awards: Full List of Winners & Scoop; Sammy Okposo to open NEA show in NY, etc

When you talk of administration, he was once the head of gospel musicians association in Nigeria Sammie Okposo not fit to lead gospel musicians, Says Asu Ekiye, Sammy Okposo, Asu Ekiye Battle For Leadership Of Gospel Musicians

Significant coverage are so many, we have no control over what reliable sources use as their headlines, these are just a few that Google returned as top: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Top Gospel Musicians making waves, He is noted to have been a pioneer of soundtrack in Nollywood video film era here, http://www.punchng.com/nigerian-gospel-artistes-treated-as-royals-abroad-okposo/ Nigerian gospel artistes treated as royals abroad, Sammie Okposo’s Live Video For “A Marvelous Thing” Hits 100K Views In 3 Weeks!, Gospel singer postpones release date of album "S.W.A.G", etc.

Comment - @HandsomeBoy - I absolutely love it when I run into people that can read my mind and know me so well. LOL...you have no idea.

Brief mentions, puff pieces, and listings do not make significant, in-depth mentions. I can't comment on the significance of the awards. I am no expert, but I would like to see someone else chime in besides you. Hence the AfD. I will also support DMacks comment about WP:UNCIVIL. Your comments do not reflect the the community of Wikipedia and frankly I am surprised by your comment telling him to keep his, "...advice to yourself." I highly suggest you refrain from continued comments on the AfD unless you read and understand WP:UNCIVIL. Disagreements are common place in discussions, but WP:UNCIVIL comments are not appreciated by the community. reddogsix (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to learn to put WP:BEFORE and AFD guidelines in practice, and not nominate articles based on your liking. And don't make this about me, when its actually you. I go through AFD lists daily, and participates in the ones that interest me. As rightly said, civil disagreement with the nominator and !voters is something that happens often, what I find appalling is when the nominator is insensitive towards guidelines and facts. I thought the cummulative argument of you and your probable WP:TAGTEAM was that this AFD wasn't even warranted, now that I've given some references that show some sort of significance, you have changed to putting out the AFD inorder to determine if they are sufficient. I am happy you are starting to learn that you need to take it easy or increase your efficiency. Let me end by saying most of the information in the article are 100% factual even though they were unsourced. This is a problem with most notable pre-2010 Nigerian entertainers. Once again, I say the way reliable source cover notable entertainers is not within our power, once notability is established and independent coverage are numerous a decent article can always be written. If you continue to reply me on my vote, I'll continue to comment. If you don't want me to comment anymore on this AFD, then don't reply me. You don't have the moral justification to tell me when to stop commenting in an AFD discussion. I'm even tired of your uninformed and biased lectures disguised as good faith advice. HandsomeBoy (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @HandsomeBoy - Are you really ending your diatribe? reddogsix (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just went through it and every cited ref for claims of notability is bogus. I tagged them as such. We're pretty much at {{db-band}} here. DMacks (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. So you usually !vote only based on ref in an article, not from Google results, wow. you're such a considerate Wikipedia editor. Now I understand better what Jimbo was saying on his talkpage some weeks ago.HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Others say it failed BEFORE and cleaned it up, and I say it now doesn't even merit a full AFD but here we are with a chance for those who know about this topic to get into action. The fact that there are claims of notability with cites that do not support them is not a good-faith attempt at writing a viable article and the WP:BURDEN isn't mine. The claims are so vague and WP:PEACOCK I don't even know how to look many of them up. I advise you not to dig yourself into a deeper WP:CIVIL hole if you wish to continue to participate. DMacks (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your advice to yourself, I don't need one from a Wikipedian that participates in an AFD without using Google. Even if this article is deleted, it doesn't affect my work here. I'll move on very easily. HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Article could use expansion and improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm surprised this is even AfDable! Subject passes WP:GNG, as there have been multiple significant coverages by the Nigerian media. -Mahveotm (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep LMAO. This is the best joke of the year. Subject is very much notable. Mredidiongekong (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The KEEP voters above, other than HandsomeBoy, need to add some evidence beyond merely saying that Okposo is notable. HandsomeBoy found many useful sources and it is true that a lot of them (but not all) are quick mentions, but Okposo has certainly won plenty of prestigious awards and was covered in African media for doing so. Here are some additional interviews and media profiles: [20], [21], [22]. A lot of little sources are adding up pretty well here. The article needs expansion, not deletion. Also, keep me out of the uncivil arguments above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 11:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global Music Awards[edit]

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

The intent of these awards is primarily promotional[23] (Global Music Awards (GMA) is a prestigious international music competition which celebrates truly independent musicians, showcasing original music, unique voices, and emerging artists outside of the major label system. GMA honors establish credibility and help artists schedule bookings and secure dates, as well as gain promotion, distribution, and radio play. Talented artists who win awards are just as talented as some of the biggest artists in the country; GMA helps generate buzz about their music and reaches industry insiders, music managers, music supervisors, and record label executives) with ~4 sets of awards per year. In February 2018, there were 9 gold medals (one a best in show), ~70 silver medals for outstanding achievement, and ~50 bronze medals -- fewer than silver -- for the "finalists". One of the potential prizes listed is a feature article in Billboard Magazine, but there's 0 matches for "global music award[s]" at Billboard.com, and I can't find other independent evidence of a direct link between Billboard and the prize result. There's passing mention of the winning of the award by some artists -- because that's what the awards are designed to be -- but there doesn't really appear to be any significant RS independent coverage of the awards themselves. These awards should not be used to establish notability (though winners and their works may be independently notable). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 15:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkeep49 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The awards appear to be primarily promotional per nom. Independent coverage of the award itself is very limited, what sources there are appear to be largely promotional [24], otherwise the sources are only about musicians who won the awards (presumably a form of self-promotion by the artists themselves - they submit themselves for consideration for the award by paying a fee). Note that it should not be confused with another award called Global Awards that turns up searches for Global Music Awards [25]. That is given by the Global media company, and that appears to be a valid award with many independent sources. Hzh (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, I would like to mention that this is my first attempt to create a page. If the tone of the page appears promotional, I would work on it and make it look more appropriate for the encyclopedic platform that Wikipedia is. However, the notability of the awards is there as it is covered by numerous independent sources. Similar pages like International Jean Sibelius Violin Competition and Akil Koci Prize are covered by few or less sources as compared to Global Music Awards, but they haven't been deleted. If this is the standard for notability of the award or prize pages, then Global Music Awards is far more notable than the others. Motivatedjack (talk) 07:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a basic misunderstanding. Notability is not determined by the number of references in the article per WP:NEXIST, but by the number of independent reliable sources that exist in a search. For example, a simple search for International Jean Sibelius Violin Competition would yield numerous results in Google Books - [26], which is not something you can say for Global Music Awards - [27] (just one passing mention of someone winning the award, given the way the number of awards they gave, it is surprising). I can easily fix the sourcing issue with International Jean Sibelius Violin Competition, but here the issue with Global Music Awards is more problematic. It is not merely that it is written in a promotional way, but that the award itself appear to be non-notable but designed in a way that can be used to for self-promotion (and the bulk of the sources are those used by the artist to promote themselves). There is no indication of any credible or notable organization that supports it (the mention of Billboard is not supported by Billboard itself, for all we know it could simply involve placing an advert at Billboard), and has all the appearances of a vanity award (artists submit themselves for the awards, pay a fee and get an award), which has to be mentioned if true. Compare for example to the similarly titled Global Awards I can find numerous independent coverage of the award itself even thought it is in reality just a radio award local to the UK (the word Global refers to the company that gave the award) and only just started this year - [28][29][30][31][32], which is not something you can say about Global Music Awards. No one appears to care about it except those who won it. Hzh (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. So Why 11:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Eichhof[edit]

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

My original intention was actually to clean up, expand, and overall improve this article, but my search for reliable sources on this game have come up more or less empty-handed. At WP:VG, the project's notability criteria states that “Video game-related articles are considered notable by this project if they pass Wikipedia's general notability guidelines” and I have been unable to locate sufficient, non-trivial, independent third-party sources that would satisfy WP:N.

If we look at the version of the article prior to my AfD nomination, it has nine references: one is a YouTube video of where the game took its music from, one is a zip file with the readme that came with the game, one was a forum that contained a copy of the game (and is no longer working), two were places to download it at the Windows Store, two are its entries at Home of the Underdogs and Moby Games (neither are considered a RS by WP:VG), and one is a brief reference to the game in a broader discussion. That leaves one reliable reference, Eurogamer, that says anything more than “the game exists” and, even then, its commentary appears to be sandwiched in the middle of a larger discussion about a different topic.

Finally, given that it was a freeware game, rather than a major release from a company, it’s unlikely that significant coverage exists outside of what can be found through a proper Google/Google Books search (as a silly/inappropriate example, a newspapers.com search yields one result from 1994 from The Age, which effectively just describes the game). The fact is, there are essentially no independent, reliable sources that say anything more than “this game exists”, which, unless there is a guideline I am missing, is not sufficient for a Wikipedia article on a video game. As much as I enjoy this game, there is unfortunately nothing from the perspective of Wikipedia’s criteria that qualify it as notable. Canadian Paul 15:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep, reception, prizes, ports to dozens of platforms, ten-thousands of downloads over the years. Also, prejudice: '"given that it was a freeware game, rather than a major release from a company, it’s unlikely that significant coverage exists"' -> there is no relationship neither in WP policies nor in reality at all between "notability" and "commerciality" of a VG game at all. Shaddim (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide evidence that the topic is notable by providing multiple, independent, reliable sources which provide the topic a significant treatment. If you have none or few, then the game is not presently (nor probably ever) notable and should be removed from coverage here. --Izno (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ported to multiple platforms over the years, so having a living legacy. For instance, years later brought to Windows shop https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/p/the-last-eichhof/9wzdncrd2ccr. Ported years (2014) later to allegro: https://sourceforge.net/projects/lasteichhof/ Ported to many linux distros... Shaddim (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are not indications of significance. If you cannot do as I requested (provide evidence that the topic is notable by providing multiple, independent, reliable sources which provide the topic a significant treatment), then do not waste your time or mine responding again. --Izno (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
usage, porting, downloads are the PRIMARY indications of relevance: something has impact in reality, is used, it is remembered, is intermingled with culture, has influence. The strange "reliable sources" requirement is only an indirect, less powerful way to assess (but much more convenient) relevancy. Sadly, WP is nowadays severely crippled by being overfocused on the limiting aspects. Also, you might have noticed that I expanded on the sources. Shaddim (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Eurogamer link for reference. I agree that the topic of the article is not the game in question and thus significance is not established. There's a reference in a book in German but it doesn't strike me as a significant treatment. Delete. --Izno (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The Eurogamer author researched the history of the game development and its authros to a detail deeper than the WP article. Mechanics and artistic impact are described. This is complete, significant treatment. Shaddim (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. But see above. --Izno (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Here's a full article in PC Tipp, a Swiss gaming magazine. Zarkonnen (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there does seem to be independent coverage such as the PCTipp review and the Eurogamer paragraph, and others - more would be better but it already barely passses WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of RS coverage. Phediuk (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article in Le Monde (the NYT of France) is a strong enough reference in my opinion. Boblafoudre (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 11:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Zohadi[edit]

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

Editor of magazines are not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia, unless they pass GNG. I did some Google searches and found some press coverage but in no source can I find the subject discussed with the "significant coverage" WP:GNG requires.

The subject is editor of 2A magazine (not really Notable) and its WP entry is now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2A Magazine. Saqib (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have already PRODED 2A Magazine, notability is not really established on both pages. Mredidiongekong (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:38, 28 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. So Why 11:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pallavi Patil[edit]

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

Film actors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:ACTORBIO. The article claims the subject has appeared in several films but except one, none of the film has own WP page so I'm not sure if they are notable films at least by WP standards. So IMO fail to meet most relevant notability guideline WP:ACTORBIO. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person so apparently fails to meet basic GNG as well. There was no entry on MR WP until someone created it today therefore I cant see any significance. I would say Wikipedia:NotJustYet. Saqib (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:39, 28 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. So Why 11:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2A Magazine[edit]

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

The page has less than 5 reliable sources on GNEWS and doesn't really satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Mredidiongekong (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has coverage in multiple reliable sources, more than five is certainly a pass of WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:39, 28 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. @FloridaArmy: If you need a copy to create an article about the parent organization, leave me a message. So Why 11:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nanda Devi Institute of Adventure Sports and Outdoor Education[edit]

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

I do not believe this meets WP:GNG. There are no citations to reliable independent sources demonstrating notability and I couldn't find any online either. The article is really just an advertisement for the creator's enterprise; he states on his userpage that he has founded the enterprise and all his activities on Wikipedia seem to have been involved with this enterprise. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The parent organization Mountain Shepherds is notable. The article should be rewprked to be about that group. I would do it but am not sure what is allowed durong a deletion discussion. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:41, 28 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. So Why 11:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Converse Backus[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG most of the sources are obituaries 3 of other people and 1 of him. There is no indepth coverage whatsoever. Nothing in the article suggests that he achieved anything that is notable enough to warrant an article. The main claim to significance is having had a letter published in the NY times. This I think is not enough. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails GNG. Husounde (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. So Why 11:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Nasirudeen Maiturare[edit]

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

Not much coming up on Google Scholar - a WP:BEFORE check shows he is "vice-chancellor" of a IBBUL or IBB University in Nigeria - not sure if editors will consider this "an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon" Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 08:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 08:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There might not be alot coming up on google scholar but it is considered a big deal in Nigeria to be named Vice Chancellor and they're quite a number of sources though not much on GNEWS. Plus the University is notable. Mredidiongekong (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep, obviously notable. Passes criterion 3 of NPROF. Mahveotm (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF#C6 too. Vice Chancellor is greater position than "named professorial chair" which must be under vice Chancellor's office. As said in this AfD: "Vice chancellor" is the chief executive and academic officer of University in Nigeria (and most Commonwealth states) while "Chancellor", " Pro-Chancellor" or "President" is ceremonial/titular/non-remunerated role given to traditional rulers/or retired expert. In addition, generally all vice chancellors (of public versites, at least) are seasoned professors (I mean Full professor in U.S sense) with long records. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator quotes WP:PROF#C5, but that is irrelevant because the subject clearly passes WP:PROF#C6, as stated in the nomination statement itself. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any reliable sourcing supporting the assertion that this university is a "significant accredited college or university" and it's not on this list of public universities in Nigera [33] Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That just lists the federal universities. Try looking at the list of state universities at the same site. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No valid reason for deletion was provided, so this could have been speedy kept. Any merge can be discussed on the talk page. So Why 11:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Types of road[edit]

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

Basically a poorly written duplicate of an existing category. Chimneyrock (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of road types by features. This list has a whopping amount of OR (alleys and cul-de-sacs are "lower capacity highways"?). The other list is more ~~objective~~ precise (although, on second look, some of the claimed features seem to verge on OR too, and very little of it is sourced) and complete, but there are some entries that aren't on there. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. This list has a whopping amount of OR classification. Alleys and cul-de-sacs are "lower capacity highways"? I'm not sure if List of road types by features should be deleted or tagged for cleanup, but it's not worth merging to at present. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Under some definitions, any public right of way is a highway, not just the roadways most people think about when they hear the word highway. So yes, those would be "lower capacity highways". Imzadi 1979 → 06:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Apparently these are legitimate (if nutty) classifications.[34][35] Clarityfiend (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hierarchy of roads? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is there a worldwide standard, or are there multiple competing ones? If the latter, this list is very misleading and incomplete. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is that this list is very misleading and incomplete. There is not only no worldwide standard, but here in the UK there is no national or even local standard. For example anything from a a short dirt track to a major Roman road hundreds of miles long, such as Watling Street or Ermine Street, can take the name "street". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked out our article on the street where my daughter lives and see that I was wrong above. It actually dates to pre-Roman times. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—per WP:CLN. Imzadi 1979 → 06:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Road#Road_terminology which it duplicates. Mangoe (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Road#Road_terminology per suggestion by Mangoe. Ajf773 (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to KOD. So Why 11:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kod[edit]

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

Software program that lasted two years (2010-2012) with no substantial/enduring cultural impact. Significant coverage is lacking. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 15:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Even though this article is already discontinued by its project-founder, I believe it gave enough impact during those two years. Also, future related text-editors could also take a look at past ones to maybe improve and gain ideas about the features they would plan to create. Perhaps, the article just need a good reorganisation and improvements. Romrom9 (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if there isn't significant coverage in secondary sources that can be found. Is there anywhere it could be merged to Classicwiki? Alduin2000 (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Alduin2000. Possibly redirect to List of text editors? I don't know where to merge the content. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 23:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable software product. The only independent reference is a 3-paragraph review in Lifehacker. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think there has been a good argument to keep this. I think it would be best to redirect to the disambiguation KOD or one of the pages listed on there rather than List of text editors because it isn't notable as a text editor. Alduin2000 (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Storvik[edit]

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

No notable works, fails WP:NDIRECTOR and is generally WP:TOOSOON — IVORK _Discuss 08:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too soon. Geschichte (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst understanding the reasoning, I want to draw attention to a couple of other articles concerning directors with even, or lesser, experience / detailed articles / noted works.

Comparable Norwegian directors / actors

David Berget (One short film as notable credit, not even referencing IMDb on site.)

Comment: Requires a source to verify selected by Danny Lennon to screen in a special program under The 64th annual Cannes Film festival — IVORK _Discuss 23:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Line Halvorsen (No notable productions according to Wikis terms. Short article. One of the things the article states she is notable for is the "behind the scenes" featurette of a TV show in 2000.)

Comment: May need clarification as to what award it was that A stone's throw away (2003) actually won. — IVORK _Discuss

Camilla Stroem Henriksen (Noted for TV without much sourcing. Should rather be listed as an actress, if anything, as that's where her notability is due to being nominated for Actress awards.)

Comment: Is notable due to won the Best Actress Rouen Nordic Film Festival, I've found and added a source to prevent it being deleted under WP:BLPPROD. — IVORK _Discuss

Cato Manuel Ekrene (No titles of notability. Short article. Speculation in future, clearly not updated since 2014 as "Run" never happened as planned - turned into a short with no distribution.)

Comment: Already deleted this morning under WP:CSD#A7 by User:Deb — IVORK _Discuss

Hanne Myren (Also only one notable title that allows listing in this category. Very short page.)

Comment: Already deleted this morning under WP:CSD#A7 by User:Deb — IVORK _Discuss

Ingeranna Krohn-Nydal (Only one semi-notable title, short page.)

Comment: Notable for winning the 1993 International Federation of Film Critics award at the International Leipzig Festival for Documentary and Animated Film, however would be good to find additional sourcing (I couldn't from a brief search) — IVORK _Discuss

Geir Ove Kvalheim (Not even a director. At most, a journalist or an extra in films.)

Comment: Potentially notable for his political work and legal issues, article is currently unsourced and will need references from no:Geir Ove Kvalheim or otherwise to avoid WP:BLPPROD deletion — IVORK _Discuss

Cecilie Mosli (Should, if anything, be listed as an actor. Wiki apparently states that directing single episodes do not qualify for inclusion, so would assume this applies here.)

Comment: Has a few works, directing episodes of Grey's Anatomy helps to qualify her — IVORK _Discuss

Hisham Zaman (Not arguing against this one, per se, as since it was made he has made "Letters to the King". Just saying that it should be updated and expande, and using it as a point of contetion as this clearly got made before Hisham Zaman was notable per the definitions used against this article.)

Comment: Needs new references as the only one on the page is currently leading to a 404. Notability depends on what these awards for the short films are — IVORK _Discuss

Hallvar Witzø (Noted for a short film whose nomination was pulled for an Academy Award, since made one short and directed reality TV.)

Comment: Is notable due to the Academy Award nomination. — IVORK _Discuss

Morten Skallerud (Made a few shorts, one won one award.)

Comment: Notable due to winning Amanda Award for Best Short Film in 1991 — IVORK _Discuss

Øyvind Sandberg (TV Documentaries and one short.)

Comment: Won two awards at the Tromsø International Film Festival — IVORK _Discuss

David Reiss-Andersen (Has one upcoming film, otherwise not a notable director per Wiki. Notable Ad Agency owner, though.)

Comment: Arguably not notable. Family ties do not automatically make the descendant notable. Would need to verify the notability of Pravda though — IVORK _Discuss

Now, these pages, in my opinion, fall under the same issues as raised against this page. All things being equal, as these pages have been approved, as should this one. Either that, or the pages listed should be updated/removed following the precedent these articles have set for inclusion. I have no quarrel with either alternative, but removal of this article without updates/changes/removal of the aforementioned articles, I do have an issue with, as their inclusion on Wiki has set a precedent for article inclusion under the Norwegian Director category.

Keep, precedent sat by other Wiki articles clearly shows this article should not be deleted. Gregor101z (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per below Gregor101z, you're correct in stating that those pages don't all show notability. Some have already actually been deleted, others do state and provide references to the awards won for their work, which per WP:NDIRECTOR, does qualify them for inclusion. I have responded to each as to it's notability. However the underlying issue is that Tom Storvik has not won any awards for his works nor does he meet any other criteria in WP:NDIRECTOR or WP:GNG otherwise — IVORK _Discuss 23:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The other pages should be looked at with a possible view to deletion as well. Deb (talk) 15:02, 29 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Petra (singer)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Many refs are YouTube and all but one are passing mentions. A quasi interview is way below the line for notability . Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has won music awards. Not all articles are passing mentions; some feature her. http://allafrica.com/stories/201401080839.html https://www.sde.co.ke/pulse/article/2000112141/petra-s-originality The Pwani Celebrity Awards receive significant coverage. https://nairobinews.nation.co.ke/chillax/frankie-dee-dominates-pwani-celebrity-awards/ https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2015/11/21/glamour-at-third-edition-of-pwani-celebrity-awards_c1246105 That's enough. As for too many references being youtube videos: WP:SOFIXIT Ross-c (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple awards and a few articles. It's not a lot, but it's enough. - Kenirwin/(talk) 15:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added some additional citations to her article and I believe she passes WP:GNG for significant discussion in secondary sources. Lonehexagon (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can only agree with the opinions already expressed, the article should be kept. ZeR0101MiNt (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per improvements with additional refs.BabbaQ (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 10:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shauna Sylvester[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a businessperson and as yet unelected mayoral candidate, whose claims of notability are "referenced" to primary sources rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage apart from one short blurb in one listicle. Neither businesspeople nor non-winning mayoral candidates get an automatic notability freebie just because their own self-published web presence technically verifies that they exist -- her professional career might get her over our inclusion standards if enough reliable source coverage about it in media could be shown to get her over GNG (her candidacy for mayor, conversely, does not assist in demonstrating encyclopedic notability in and of itself), but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG. No prejudice against recreation in November if she wins the mayoralty, but nothing here is enough to already get her an article today. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I completely disagree with the above assessment. I've worked alongside Shauna Sylvester in the past, but have no connection with her now. I can attest that she has been the subject of extensive media coverage for her work on energy dialogue issues, and she has won multiple awards for her contributions to the Centre for Dialogue. I will track some reliable source coverage and cite them in the article. Jamesglave (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winning unspecified awards is not an automatic notability freebie. Some awards count as notability claims that clinch a person's wikinotability in and of themselves — an actor winning an Oscar or an Emmy or a CSA, a writer winning the Pulitzer or the Giller — but many other awards that exist do not. So a person is not guaranteed a Wikipedia article just because they've won awards — it depends what award, and how well the award can be reliably sourced. And "extensive media coverage for her work on energy dialogue issues" also depends on the quality of the sourcing — sources which glancingly namecheck her existence, or briefly quote her, in an article about something else are not the same thing, and do not support notability as strongly, as sources about her as a subject. And if you've worked with her in the past , you still have a direct conflict of interest regardless of whether you're still working with her now or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:38, 15 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) 18:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially promotional with at no clear notability. An article listing a lot of minor accomplishments implies there are no major ones DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim to notability unless they win the mayoral election. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I improved the article with more information and citations. It now passes WP:GNG due to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." [36][37][38][39][40] She appears to be a significant candidate in a significant race that has received a lot of media attention. Lonehexagon (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every mayoral race always generates media coverage in its own local media, so the number of citations shown here now does not constitute evidence that Shauna Sylvester's candidacy is special. If you cannot demonstrate that she was already notable enough for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then the simply expected volume of local media coverage does not magically get her over GNG in lieu of not passing NPOL. Every single mayoral candidate in every single place that has mayoral elections could always show at least as much coverage as this or more, but simply being a mayoral candidate is not an NPOL pass in and of itself for a person who didn't already have preexisting notability for other reasons — so showing that some media coverage of her campaign exists does not exempt her from having to pass NPOL, because every candidate would always get that same exemption if it were. The way to make a person notable just for being a candidate for office is to show a volume and range of coverage that singles her out as special, not a volume and range of coverage that's completely in line with what every candidate could always show. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL as an unelected candidate and WP:GNG as a businessperson. Does not pass a broader GNG guideline because of the above sources which were found - they all discuss her as a candidate. SportingFlyer talk 04:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fails WP:NPOL, if she actually goes on to win the race, this can be revisited.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Premature article. Husounde (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 10:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago Stieben[edit]

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

None of the sources listed under external links is WP:RS. I searched, and added one reference; it's essentially an interview, plugging a new series. I don't consider it WP:RS either. I found nothing better. His IMDb entry lists 13 roles, none of them starring. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 28 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 Energy (esotericism). czar 18:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic energy[edit]

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

{{{The content of this page was a disambig Cosmic energy (disambiguation) and then this page was created as an article, with just the content from the disambig moved here.... }}} TantraYum (talk) 07:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator agree with discussion below- didn't realize it had been a redirect already, let's just make it that. TantraYum (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This shouldn't be a redlink. Just revert it to the redirect to Energy (esotericism). —Cryptic 07:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Cryptic. SpinningSpark 00:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (per above) Cosmic energy to Energy (esotericism) as primary topic. The conversion of Cosmic energy from a redirect to a dab page may have been because there is no redirect/other uses hatnote at Energy (esotericism): I fixed that. ~~What does need attention is the content of Cosmic energy (disambiguation), but that's another story~~ Good job user:Spinningspark. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. There was a hatnote, up until it removed - in the edit immediately preceding yours - by the same IP who cut-and-paste-moved the dab. —Cryptic 08:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cryptic: You're right, there was, in which case I can't explain th IP editor's actions! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Faria Bukhari[edit]

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

Film actors are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:ACTORBIO. Apparently the subject has appeared in only 1 film (no major role) and in one TV drama serial (not notable by WP standards). I don't see her passing WP:ACTORBIO. She received some press coverage (mention in passing) but nothing "significant coverage" WP:GNG requires. Saqib (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass notability guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NACTOR as has not had significant roles in multiple shows. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't pass notability guidelines yet, so, its a delete for now. M A A Z T A L K 05:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'nomination withdrawn'. (non-admin closure) samee converse 19:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nadir Ali Khan[edit]

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

A YouTuber is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia unless he meet GNG. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person so can't see any significance. Saqib (talk) 07:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTYOUTUBE WP:NOTFACEBOOK WP:NOTPROMOTION Acnetj (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. FITINDIA 15:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Doesn't pass GNG as of now, so delete it. M A A Z T A L K 05:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer admin Article was created 10 years ago in a different topic. check articles history. it was created based on an Indian writer but few days back, someone changed full content to the YouTuber. Pls check the article's history to understand what i'm talking about. --119.30.45.248 (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How pity. It never crossed my mind. I've restored the original article and hence I withdraw this nom. --Saqib (talk) 08:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Australian Christian Lobby. (Next time try boldly redirecting before coming to AfD) czar 18:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martyn Iles[edit]

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

Mr Iles does not appear to be independently notable of the organisation he heads, the Australian Christian Lobby. All of the sources available through a Google News search [41] are quoting him in previous roles with this organisation (which appears to have been where he has spent virtually his entire career) or brief mentions of him recently taking up the role of the Lobby's managing director. The only articles focused on him are this recent interview in The Australian (which is almost entirely about the Australian Christian Lobby's priorities, and includes only a few paragraphs about him) and a couple of recent biographies published on low profile religious news websites. As such, I don't think that WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO are met. Mr Iles can be covered as part of the article on the Lobby, which is notable, and if he becomes the subject of significant coverage an article can be created. Note that while we have articles on the Lobby's previous managing directors, John Gagliardi (Australian) appears borderline at best, Jim Wallace (Australian activist) was notable before taking up the position due to his Army career, and Lyle Shelton (lobbyist) received significant coverage due to his prominent role in the campaign to try to stop gay marriage. Mr Illes has not yet been the subject of such coverage. Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Australian Christian Lobby. Nothing in this article that is not already covered on the ACL page. Iles' referenced comments and positions in this article are solely as the spokesperson for ACL, whose notability is not inheritable by its staff. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. Subject is a likely search term. Probably WP:TOOSOON. Agree with analysis by NOM. Single non-inheritable cause for notability. Aoziwe (talk) 13:25, 28 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. So Why 10:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mikkhail Vaswani[edit]

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

Non-notable television anchor/cricketer, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of satisfying WP:NCRICKET. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Husounde (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 10:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DayStar Technologies[edit]

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

The company is apparently defunct, which does not necessarily make it non-notabler. Its failure to accomplish anything during its lifetime,and the consequent almost total lack of third party coverage is the problem DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article consists largely of unsourced material about a 2012 commercial deal, and my searches am not finding anything better than routine announcements of appointments and resignations, layoffs, and in 2013 a sale of the company's technology ([42] – via HighBeam (subscription required) ). Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 10:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upsilon Xi[edit]

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

No third party references for this club at a single university. The article is essentially a misuse of WP as a web host--the material would is of no encyclopedic interest. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:18, 28 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. So Why 10:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Studio Arcade[edit]

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

Not my field, but there seems to be no indication of even significance, let alone notability DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried a couple of web searches but failed to find anything resembling significant coverage in reliable sources likely to meet WP:Notability. --Qwfp (talk) 07:48, 28 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. czar 18:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctica penguin deaths[edit]

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

A news story about the deaths of an overly-specific group of penguins, who likely relocated rather than died. At the very least, an inappropriate page name. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 04:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer talk 05:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS that is also FAKE. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not fake at all, it is a well-established finding (and the required references are there), but not worth an article. Might be worth a mention in Adélie penguin if that article were to be expanded with a population ecology & conservation section. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the last paragraph? The reports of their demise were greatly exaggerated. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware - it's a colony size decline mostly driven by emigration, not mortality. It's still a significant finding that clarifies environmental mechanisms, kind of like the oil spills that affect the African penguins with which I work: rare catrastrophic events that can be used as impromptu experimental setups. Good stuff but not sensational enough for a standalone article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe the author should try to submit this to a clickbait trivia site. Natureium (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arindam Sharma[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON even his movie is not published yet. Mar11 (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! It is already published. Kindly go via the links in the reference section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anky95 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO completely. Mere passing mentions in relation to promotional film. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, not yet notable per WP:FILMMAKER with only passing mentions in WP:RS online. Article was speedied a few days ago. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Advitya (film). The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a before search brought up nothing, and agree with above delete voters. SportingFlyer talk 04:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MT Train^Talk 07:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anky95 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article creator is now calling for deletion after a busy few days of attempting to circumvent this discussion, first by removing the AFD template from both this article and from Advitya (film) via sockpuppet account User:Sanki011, then via an IP sock, and then by attempting to blank both pages using his original account. Half an hour later, creator is asking here to delete. This discussion should continue until it arrives at a consensus on notability, otherwise we'll be right back here again when it's re-created under a new account. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I, the creator believe that it is early for both the pages to be on wiki ; so I agree with the deletion of these two pages. Please go ahead and remove the pages. Thanks:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anky95 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - reviewing admins, please note editor has resumed removing AFD templates from both articles: this is currently being discussed at ANI, but the pattern of bad-faith editing amounts to an admission by that editor of low notability. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a Google search shows this fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 1Sale LLC#History. Per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. The argument made for deletion actually supports a redirect. If the company's article is deleted, the redirect will disappear as well after all. Anything worthwhile to merge can be extracted from the history if needed. So Why 10:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Federman[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable entrepreneur. Affiliated with one notable entity. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP, or not independent of the company. Created by Special:Contributions/Richardo42 currently indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts; likely UPE based on behavioural evidence. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTLINKEDIN Acnetj (talk) 06:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 1Sale_LLC#History. Founder is known for a single entity, which has its own troubled history on Wikipedia. Formerly deleted as 1Sale [[43]], and then was recreated by sneakily moving over a little used DAB page [[[44]]]. I know many would delete the company article just on that basis, but it appears notable due to the coverage. Maybe block the user, who hasn't edited in years though.TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article attributes notability to his founding a NN company. Husounde (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 18:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Samerai[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable entrepreneur. Affiliated with nn notable entities. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP, or not independent of the company. Created by Special:Contributions/Focusanddetermination08 with few other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article on a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTLINKEDIN Acnetj (talk) 06:12, 29 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 11:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Hatton[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable entrepreneur. Affiliated with one blue-linked entity, FundRazr, which is only marginally notable itself. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP, or not independent of the company. Created by Special:Contributions/ZeldaChild with few contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTLINKEDIN Acnetj (talk) 06:13, 29 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 11:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Haruna[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:17, 29 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. So Why 10:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Addams[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No notable contributions to the genre. Being 94th on a list of adult actresses is an insufficient claim of significance.

The award category listed NightMoves Awards - Best Cougar/MILF Performer (Editor’s Choice) - is not significant. The rest are nominations. The last AfD closed as "no consensus" in 2016, so it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO#1 because of the NightMoves Awards - Best Cougar/MILF Performer (Editor’s Choice) and the amount of nominations as well Abote2 (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well-established consensus holds both that NightMoves awards fail the "well-known/significant" standard of PORNBIO, and that MILF-type award categories also fail the same standard. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the required coverage in reliable sources to pass the general notability guidelines. This is the first judgement, and should be the one we look at. The pornographic performers biography guidelines have lead to over coverage of those who do this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Wasn't notable in the first AFD and 4 AFDs later nothing's changed, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this, for being 19th most popular pornstar of the year 2016. In my opinion, it also passes the first half of WP:PORNBIO#2. Also per WP:COMMONSENSE. A harmless article. Not result of paid editing, nor for promotional purposes. In last 30 days. the article got 78,684 page views; with a daily average of 2,538 views. In one year it got 1,014,702 views; with monthly average of 84,559. People are certainly interested in this article, and they are reading it too. The article doesnt have any unsourced content, nor any promotional content. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That looks to me like the kind of sense that might be common to porn-obsessed adolescent boys, but not to the wider population. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, please log in. This IP is used from the beginning to edits in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and related pages, we clearly see that it's a sockpuppet. Please, once again - do not log out and use your account. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 18:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please either withdraw that allegation or take it to WP:SPI. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, SPI is not so easy, however, if you start voting... the situation changes and falls under SPI. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 19:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that won't do. If you are not prepared to give any evidence of sockpuppetry at WP:SPI then you should withdraw the allegation. I haven't said "keep" or "delete" in this discussion, but I have in plenty of other discussions, so the "if you start voting" condition is fulfilled. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

do you voluntarily agree to check if you are a sock-puppet? Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 20:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to start a sockpuppet investigation is evidence, not my agreement. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets of the PORNBIO & GNG. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 17:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no independent reliable sources, as opposed to unreliable promotional industry sources, presented either in the article or in this discussion, and I can find none. The award and the nominations are for niche categories, and such awards only exist for promotional purposes. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I've said before, fails even the lax standards of WP:PORNBIO, since scene nominations are excluded by the guideline text and "MILF" category nominations have been repeatedly rejected by prior AFD and DRV determinations as falling below the well-known/significant standard. Fails the GNG, no nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits, while the pop-culture namedrops are trivial, not the necessary substantive coverage. Just another porn performer BLP without reliably sourced biographical content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Usernamekiran Meets WP:NACTOR#2. RS coverage is very basic, but enough.Guilherme Burn (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On what evidence do you base the claim that Addams meets WP:NACTOR#2? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete derisory keep arguments and BLPs deserve substantial sourcing that is absent here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet the GNG or PORNBIO. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anikka[edit]

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

An unremarkable series. Does not meet WP:NFILM & significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only notorius award is best director in only one movie.Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only thing worth noting here is that the two-installment series could haul in a surprising number of industry tinfoil trophies without generated more than an occasional shred of reliable, substantive coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Hasnt won any notable award,s Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://events.wan-ifra.org/events/middle-eastern-digital-media-awards/content/1583

[1]