Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 April	7 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruprecht Langer[edit]

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

Non-notable person, with no in-depth coverage in any independant sources that I can find online, per WP:NBIO. Whilst head of a section in a German national library, does this confer notability, or even merit a redirect? I'm dubious. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it was transcribed from German wiki, it is a few sentences and two references. It appears the page on German wiki was 'approved' by some kind of patrol based on those references. I can't figure out why. Google and news showing nothing I can see. Szzuk (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep - withdrawn by nominator.(non-admin closure) Nick Moyes (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lancashire (surname)[edit]

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

Uncited article duplicating an existing DAB page (Lancashire (disambiguation)) without adding any new content. Seemingly a recreation of a CSD G6 page which was deleted last month, but adds no content to assert that the topic of the surname itself is notable. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Nick Moyes (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a perfectly normal surname page, like thousands of others. The duplication is easily fixed; I've replaced the entries on the dab page with a link here. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's even a category specifically for this kind of surname: Category:English toponymic surnames. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As above, standard surname page, like many others. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you both. I concede that the change made by Clarityfiend resolves the duplication, and the format of this type of page (even with so few entries), is a valid one. I've withdrawn the nomination. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unanimous consensus to delete, other than some obvious socking. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Powers of the Earth[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK criteria. No evidence of significant critical coverage and has only been nominated for an award, not won it. PROD removed by article creator without rationale. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 23:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 23:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 23:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are other books with less distribution than this one that are listed in Wikipedia. It's nomination to the Prometheus awards does represent that it is notable as Prometheus is well regarded in the Libertarian community — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.196.69.45 (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC) — 47.196.69.45 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - There are many uncontested articles for books with fewer sales. Opposition here seems like political hit job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:151E:80EA:2546:F041:87E7:7A53 (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC) — 2605:E000:151E:80EA:2546:F041:87E7:7A53 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Please note that accusing other editors of a "political hit job" is not in line with WP:NPA. Comment on content, not on fellow contributors. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Non-notable novel by non-notable author. If it wins the Prometheus, or gets attention outside the insular world of ultra-libertarian SF fans, then a new article with actual references and footnotes could be created. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reviews or RS in this article, if it wins the award, it could substantiate it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are many uncontested articles for books with fewer sales, and the overwhelming majority of other Prometheus Award finalists, per the Award page, have entries. - Loweeel (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable book, other keep arguments offer no arguments towards its notability, only admitting it's non notable and claiming others are equally as non-notable. In that case, those articles should be deleted too._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once the Prometheus Award nominations come and go, then we'll see. But right now, the book is not proven to be independently notable. The publishing company is red-linked, and, most glaringly, there are no citations! And other than the mention of the Prometheus Award, the article does not attempt to explain the book's notability aside from this aspect about it.

PS: the supplied link to Morlock Publishing is a twitter account and not an official website. This is a quite insufficient link for an institution with supposedly Wiki-notable output. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments on Morlock at the related Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travis J I Corcoran.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

===The Powers of the Earth===

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

While winning a minor award, can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show this book passes WP:GNG, and since it hasn't won a major literary award, doesn't appear to pass WP:NBOOK. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. The "keep" posts were virtually certainly all from the creator of the article, but they would have made no difference anyway, because none of them advanced any reason for keeping which was in line with Wikipedia policies or guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Travis J I Corcoran[edit]

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

Non-notable author. Fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:AUTHOR criteria. Initial PROD removed by article's creator with the rationale: "Subject meets criterion 4(c) of creative professionals given the Prometheus Award nomination and finalist status." However, being a nominee and not a winner of one award is not evidence of significant critical attention. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 23:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 23:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 23:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find coverage of Corcoran including his prometheus nomination in Wp:rs but would welcome being proved wrong by someone. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the only claim here is the Prometheus Award, it is so narrow ("award for libertarian science fiction novels"!) that even winning it - let alone just being shortlisted - is not sufficient to establish notability. GregorB (talk) 10:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are other authors with less notability than this one who are listed. Proof of Prometheus nomination is provided on the Prometheus website http://lfs.org/releases/2018PrometheusFinalists.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.196.69.45 (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC) — 47.196.69.45 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - There are many many articles about authors in Wiki that haven’t reached the sales or award nominee status of this one. Opposition seems politically motivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:151E:80EA:2546:F041:87E7:7A53 (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC) — 2605:E000:151E:80EA:2546:F041:87E7:7A53 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Please note that accusing other editors of being politically motivated is not in line with WP:NPA. Comment on content, not on contributors. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC); edited 17:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, WP:OTHER-based arguments should be avoided. GregorB (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable author. If he won the award, maybe they would be notable. Not now....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails our standards of notability for writers. For those urging Keep: please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and do not make gratuitous ad hominem attacks on other editors. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Corcoran would be the only nominated author WITHOUT an author page. The award is 40 years old and has had numerous notable winners. - Loweeel (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable author. Fails GNG, Twitter and Amazon are not wp:rs. Also article is un-encyclopedic. "Born in the Garden State, he lived in Massachussetts but now lives freely in New Hampshire." But then again, maybe I am just a political assassin like the above SP-IP mentioned . . . ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am here, however, not here to pile on but simply to thank T.J.I. Corcoran for writing a delightfully creative Wikipedia page, I especially loved the prose in the Biography section. I also wish to give thanks for Morlock Publishing [1], so many of the authors we see here are self-published and trying to hide it by making up plausible publishing house names like "Ithaca Press." Morlock, by contrast, has such a delightful spoof of a publisher's website that it almost tempts me to order his books from Amazon.com. Cheers, Corcoran (if that is, in fact, your name,) you are a joy read!E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a wikipedia editor of long standing, and I know that one does not create or edit pages relevant to one's self. I've neither created not edited the page, not have I voted in the deletion discussion. Thanks for the ad hominem attacks and baseless (and, in fact, actually incorrect) assumptions. I am, of course, interested in the page and the debate. TJIC (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article about an author reads less like an encyclopedic entry and more like a social media profile. Would be more fitting of, say, a Userpage on Wikipedia. The single-sentence lead does not mention anything that would make Corcoran notable, instead opting to say that Corcoran is this, that, and owns this type of property; it is a rather bland lead because of this. If Corocoran fits the notability guidelines someday, his article should not read like a hokey fact-sheet about his life/lifestyle, or about how many dogs he has. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 06:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Er.... I'm fairly certain that the article is a parody of Wikipedia. Corcoran may be a pseudonym, although his writing career is a case of WP:TOOSOON whether or not it's pseudonym. Warning to fellow editors: what you saw here may soon circulate on Reddit. Because we are, at times, so pompous that we open ourselves to mockery.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The articles cannot currently be deleted for technical reasons. I've requested steward assistance. See meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous#Bigdelete request. Sandstein 11:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nostalgia Critic episodes[edit]

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

Also included:

List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (2007–2008) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (2009) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (2010) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (2011) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (2012) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (2013) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (2014) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (2015) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (2016) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (2017) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The parent article Nostalgia Critic is, at best, a marginally notable web comedy show. It could even be argued that the page (based on references currently in the article) should not have a page on Wikipedia. But that is for another time, maybe. What it has spawned is this omnibus page of episodes (List of Nostalgia Critic episodes), and ten other pages listing episodes by season (also listed). None of these pages has any notability, nor could any argument for inclusion be made for inclusion outside of an other stuff exists statement. So I recommend delete them all kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument holds no water. --104.193.236.43 (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Jeez, I luv Nostalgia Critic's coverage of movies. Therefore, gonna stay neutral & allow less biased editors to decide this article's fate. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I keep adding in a new article, and I don't mean to be mean, but I just love reading those NC articles, and I believe it's annoying to keep deleting one article like the 2018 article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.71.191.0 (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more convenient, if you'd sign in. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'm not that type of Wikipedia writer and editor. Even though I do create an account, I rarely use it. I just visit Wikipedia and read stuff, with little edits here and there. I don't do all those other big Wikipedia things, nor do I plan to, and I prefer to remain that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.71.191.0 (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least you're admitting to being the same individual. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete for the "also included" articles with the dates in the titles. That is just ludicrously disproportionate over-coverage of a very minor topic and probably requires no further consideration but, in case any of the walnuts crave a sledgehammer, I'll just note that some of them have no sources at all and some are "referenced" solely to social media and primary sources. Not one of them has a single valid RS reference on it! Oh, and I hurt my foot stepping on a shard of walnut shell.
Delete for the main list article too. That is not quite so egregious in its scope but, again, it is WP:V that dooms its content as well as a fair quantity of over-coverage. There are long paragraphs about individual episodes and nothing RS to verify them. In fact, there is only one non-primary source there at all; the very short Crunchyroll article and even that is not supporting the main list content, just some minor trivia about him getting a cameo appearance in a cartoon. Even if it were verifiable, 98% of this is fan writing unsuitable for an encyclopaedia. The best advice I can give to anybody who wants to keep this stuff alive is to set up their own fan wiki. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question If the main article is gonna be deleted, where else am I going to find a list of all the Nostalgia Critic episodes? I come here for convenience. I understand if it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but I want to be able to see a full list of all the Nostalgia Critic episodes. And I don't know where else to turn. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

imdb has a good list. Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I'll use that once the Wikipedia article is gone. It's less convenient but that's something I'm gonna have to get used to. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are also very extensive Wikia entries. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the year articles - unverified fancruft and over-coverage. For the parent article - I can't see anything that could meet WP:NOTABILITY, leaning towards delete. Boleyn (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No delete. I truly believe that despite any problems, and even though there's other websites and wikis that show them, I say that all List of Nostalgia Critic articles should remain on Wikipedia as well. And that's gonna be my last comment. I'm not gonna say anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.71.191.0 (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You gave no valid reason for keeping it besides WP:ILIKEIT. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Blatant fancruft- Not much else to say. Belongs on Tv tropes.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 19:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~That is an unnecessarily antagonistic deletion rationale.~~ --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. -kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all From the second nomination, deleting, controlling, sourcing or merging this content has been an exhausting process, and you can see it from the page history where many admins have tried to enforce the consensus of the 2nd nom with a merge to the main NC article (first one was a drive-by that should be disregarded), but failed or just threw up their hands and gave up. We have little sourcing to this list; there is ONE non-WP:PRIMARY source in the entire lot. I've dealt with Filipino TV fan articles with better sourcing ratios than that. The entire article is a tangle and mess of headings where you'd have to be a CA superfan (I used to consider myself one, full disclosure) in order to make sense of any of it. There is no sense of continuity or uniformity of this article, with all kinds of table styles being used throughout the article, and lots of duplicative information (after awhile, you pretty much know that the brothers write it themselves, it's just rows and rows of a record scratch), and new fields being thrown in out of nowhere like running times for reviews. If this is going to be kept, and that's a very thin proposition for me now, there needs to be better sourcing and uniformity; as-is right now this is just a mess and it's why I've been ready for someone with the courage to AfD this to finally pull the trigger. Nate • (chatter) 00:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Literally no actual argument has been made except for "Other stuff exists" and "I can't see it being notable" and "It's too much work". Wikipedia is all about work. To say "I can't see" is forceful blindness. It literally meets every notability standard--Harmony944 (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way do they meet every (or any) notability standard? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - What? ????? The main Arguments against the article are the fact thats its a massive piece of Fancruft, meaning that it focuses specifically on a small group of people (the fans) liking it, and the fact that there are literally NO non-primary sources that verify this list. While wikipedia is built off of hard work, it is also built off of secondary sources, which are preferred over primary sources. I don't know what argument you are referring to with this; The nominator is calling otherstuffexists an illegitimate argument for keeping in the lede, notability is the basis of almost all AfDs and you can't just call failing notability a bad excuse to delete, and no one is complaining about work. How does this article "Meet literally every notability standard"? 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 16:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Says the guy with an extreme prejudice against it. Maybe sit this one out.--Harmony944 (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Notwithstanding any prejudices against the article, real or perceived, you still have not answered how this meets any notability standard.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        And to clarify, I have no prejudice against the article, I was just overly angry when I wrote my delete rational (I'm not sure why), But I changed It because It doesn't accurately reflect my feelings towards the article. I'm not advocating for its deletion because I hate NC, but because this article is, simply put, unencyclopedic.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 17:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I see "Prejudice", in this sort of context, I read it like the legal use of the term. It means delete with prejudice against recreation, not with unfair prejudice in the original decision to delete. Similarly, in a legal proceeding, "dismissal with prejudice" means prejudice against refiling the dismissed action, not that the dismissal decision was itself born of prejudice. So, all I am saying here is that people should not assume unfairness due to this particular choice of words. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Money emoji would be well served to tone down the rhetoric in deletion discussions, including when replying to opinions which do not match his or hers. It would probably save a lot of angst. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry if I offended anyone with what i’ve said, and I did not mean to hurt any feelings with my deletion rationals. I don’t hate the article or anything, I just think it should be deleted. Sorry for not clarifying my thoughts earlier, and anyways, this is getting off topic- let’s get back to the discussion at hand.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 18:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, this is VERY poorly sourced; almost no secondary sources, third-party-sources or "sources known for having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It can go.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Hague Approach[edit]

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

Article is created by User:Has164; the same user who made large contributions to the article for the The Hague Institute for Global Justice, which is the organisation that developed the set of principles of this "approach." This could be forgiven when the article is sourced by third-party sources, when there is a lot of information on the internet about it, or when a lot of wikipedia-articles link to it. None of these conditions are fulfilled. The only references are from the institute that created the approach. The internet hasn't much to offer, while there are only two links from ther articles linking to this article: from the innstitute itself and from the article of a former president. This will be an uncontroversial deletion. Jeff5102 (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a WP:BEFORE search didn't come up with anything that wasn't from the institute or very closely related to the institute. SportingFlyer talk 21:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MacPherson Leslie & Tyerman[edit]

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

Delete No indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill lawfirm. References fail the criteria for establishing notability, failing WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Notability is not inherited so even though the have some notable members and alumni, this topic does not appear notable in its own right. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon (Australia and New Zealand)[edit]

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

We already have a List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon so repeating mostly the same content on a country specific audience is not needed. Fails WP:NOTTVGUIDE with dozens of schedule listings and WP:NOR as list article is completely unsourced Ajf773 (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Outside of the Canadian/Euro wildcard 'highest bidder' exceptions of shows which can easily be mentioned in the Nick ANZ article, carbon copy of the main list-of. Not needed (and worst of all, zero-sourced); @Davey2010: got the list-of within the body of Cartoon Network (Australia and New Zealand) in the recent past, so this is definitely equivalent to that. Nate • (chatter) 02:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Lindgren[edit]

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

Not notable as defined by WP:NHOCKEY Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY. If/When he passes notability the article can be restored. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete will undoubtedly meet NHOCKEY if he keeps up his current path, but we ain't fortune tellers here! – Nurmsook! ^talk... 16:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plow Monday (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND. No national hits, national concert tours, appearances in notable festivals or national TV shows. Local band with local success. Rogermx (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as they do have a short AllMusic bio and secondary coverage in the Austin Chronicle (reviews) and may have a claim to WP:NMUSIC criteria 7 as the most prominent christian heavy metal group in the area Atlantic306 (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is all local coverage and local prominence. Rogermx (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Few, if any, of the sources appear to meet WP:RS, some of them don't even mention the band, and most of the coverage that is from sources that might be passable are local. The claim of notability mentioned in the above !vote is not substantiated, nor is most of the content. This could be deleted as promotional, given the username of the article's creator, User:Plowjon. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article by SPA editor. The coverage--and yes, there is some--is local, small-time and routine and cites existence rather than notability. The authorship of the AllMusic bio is credited to the owner of a digital branding company and contains unverifiable peacock language that reads like a promotional blurb rather than a third party individual assessment of the subject. ShelbyMarion (talk) 09:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. "There's zero sources" is actually pretty much a mandate for deletion per WP:V. It's not enough that sources may exist, they need to be cited in the article to make it verifiable to readers. And if nobody has bothered to but any sources into the article during the two weeks of this AfD, nobody is likely to do so later. Sandstein 06:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Console Classix[edit]

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

It was nominated before due to a promotional tone. The issue I notice is that there is no evidence that this site is officially sanctioned by Nintendo, Sega and other parties. Even if the providers do own the games and/or systems, they do not necessarily own multiple copies (for example, owning one copy of Sonic but letting 20 people play it simultaneously is legally/ethically dubious), nor is their use specifically authorized in this matter (for example, a video game store can legally rent physical systems and software, but allowing a remote connection to an emulator is a different story). If the site worked differently (for example, Console Classix had a narrow list of partners like Ultra Games who specifically license their games for such use), I would understand. However, this is not what I have noticed. --LABcrabs (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Talk That's not really a reason to outright delete the article though. Deletion criteria in terms of copyright relates to the content of the article, not the subject. Perhaps something to bring up in the talk page. Additionally there are some secondary sources such as articles from Vintage Computing and GamesIndustry. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 02:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Legal issues regarding the service isn't really a deletion rationale, if I'm understanding correctly. The biggest issue for this article, is it's complete lack of sourcing. The user above seems to have highlighted some sources, which fit this bill. Promotional language can be removed from an article without deletion, provided it still meets WP:GNG after it's removed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to a keep (maybe weak?) with these results in the VG search engine. The rationale the nominator presents are not relevant to whether a topic should be deleted from Wikipedia. --Izno (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's zero sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The other commentators do list some sources. The issue is to see if the site is still notable and if it's worth covering on Wikipedia. --LABcrabs (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per A7. So Why 11:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

423KidK[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 18 words, no refs. Szzuk (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy delete per WP:A7. I just tagged the article as such. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as A7/G11 at Agfun4 title. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan mughal Games[edit]

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

Seems to be a bogus page. All cited sources lead to the main page of a big game company or the like, not what they say they lead to. Also, the website the article is about seems a bit shady to me. --LichWizard (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the time it took me to make this page the article has been deleted. --LichWizard (talk) 17:44, 6 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 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Republic (political organization). Consensus could reasonably read as delete, but the redirect makes sense per WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Smith (activist)[edit]

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

Non-notable activist. Fails WP:BIO and only sources in article have 2 from organisations that he worked for and 1 from the Daily Mail (which some consider unreliable) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As nominator. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin -- This !vote is by the nominator contra to WP:AFDLIST. I previously struck the duplicate per custom but this editor reverted me. Not wanting to edit-war, I'm leaving this note instead. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- A deletion argument based on the sources in the article is well-known to be deficient per WP:ARTN. This guy clearly meets GNG per any number of sources and interviews (see WP:INTERVIEW for relation of interviews to notability.) See just e.g. [2], [3], [4], and on and on and on. Another failure of WP:BEFORE. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a person who spouts off their ideas in a paper is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per nom. Being in some chat-show producers's Rolodexes is NOT even close to meeting GNG. --Calton | Talk 09:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that the user trying to delete the page is a monarchist should explain a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.74.19 (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The IP's first edit is this one and argumentum ad hominum is used, which implies this is not a genuine !vote. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Republic (political organization) the outfit he has headed up since 2005. He's not nobody, he gets quoted in the press regularly and has done since 2005 when he became head of Republic. I have not read the hundreds of articles where he is quoted, but I scanned a couple of dozen of them looking at the text surrounding his highlighted name. It always starts like this one, "Graham Smith, a spokesman for Republic, a pressure group calling for the democratic replacement of the monarchy by an elected head of state, said:..." (BNP leader to attend Queen's garden party at the Palace, The Scotsman, 21 May 2009). Links brought by IP 192.160.216.52 are of this type. Please feel free to ping me if you find a profile or enough info to source a WP:BASIC bio, I am always glad to resonsider an iVote. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Boyle (runner)[edit]

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

I can't find enough about Joe to make me think that he meets WP:NCOLLATH, or WP:GNG. Part of the article is written in first-person, which suggests self-promotion. Mikeblas (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet requirements for WP:NATH. Ajf773 (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and nothing shows he meets the notability criteria for track athletes. Papaursa (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete citation does not verify that he coached the given athletes. Furthermore it contains false material that Boyle was the 1970 AAU national champion in steeplechase (it was Bill Reilly). SFB 19:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment Systems Corporation[edit]

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

Promotional, lack of secondary sourcing: doesn't seem to pass GNG or CORP. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. Promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability for the corporation (notability is not inherited), fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 18:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Stricchiola[edit]

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

Still seems to fall short of meeting WP:BIO or WP:GNG. SmartSE (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coverage does not seem to prove WP:GNG for Stricchiola. Willie d troudour (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kaiser Chiefs discography. Sandstein 16:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Elland Road[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC - no notable sources - in fact, none at all. Has apparently been like this since 2013. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, to Kaiser Chiefs discography. Google not returning anything that suggests notability but it is a viable search term. Szzuk (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GoBike[edit]

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

Most of the source are from the primary. This article some information might be WP:HOAX. This company is not yet notable. Article style was not arranged per WP:MOS. Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 14:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was widely covered shortly after its launch, when the Department of Land Transport's declared the better known GrabBike and UberMoto illegal. It doesn't seem to have received WP:SUSTAINED coverage since then. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 16:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Festival: London[edit]

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

iTunes-exclusive EP with no sources except a link to the iTunes Festival website, which would be a primary source. I could not find any reviews from RSes, except 1 (no Alexa rank); 2 (Alexa rank of 441,998). Neither source is used more than six times in Wikipedia articles, and the second link appears to be for a different release which contains all the songs which McCartney performed at the iTunes Festival. The EP is not inherently notable despite being recorded by Paul McCartney. Jc86035 (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy G5. czar 14:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Rim Productions, Inc.[edit]

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

Delete It is created by a user, Ja'vonapedia who is a sockpuppet of Simulation12. It has been blocked indefinitely. It was created by this user in violation of block or ban and also fails WP:GNG. Evil Idiot (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speedy WP:G5 Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom and fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maxaakareebay[edit]

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

Another non-notable Somali locality which maps to a blank spot. I do get GHits on the phrase "Maxaa Ka Reebay", but GTranslate seems to think it is some fairly basic grammatical construct which is a reasonably common element of a question; I couldn't work out exactly what, but it seems unlikely for a place name. Mangoe (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC it's not obvious that a place name is meant. Mangoe (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Whatever, the town itself isn't real, so it should be deleted.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 17:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence the subject exists, the one source describes it as a "locality" which means an unpopulated place. No sources to meet WP:NGEO. The phrase does appear to mean something in Somali but from running some mentions through Google Translate none of them appear to be talking about a place. Hut 8.5 21:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmood Khan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Autobiography sourced by his own press releases & website. Cabayi (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ping previous contributors A Great Catholic Person, Bearcat, Bgwhite, DoctorKubla, Editfromwithout, Jevansen, Jihadcola, Magioladitis, Mar4d, Ohconfucius, Oshwah, Rjwilmsi, Rrburke, Ruff tuff cream puff, Tassedethe, Voceditenore, WOSlinker -- Cabayi (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform for advertorial self-promotion, but an encyclopedia. Our content needs to be referenced to reliable source coverage in media, not to the subject's own press releases — and apart from an unverified claim that he topped "the mainstream Australian music charts", which also fails to specify which chart provider is involved and thus could be iTunes for all we know, the only other notability claim here is "got X views on a piece of social media content", which is not a valid notability claim in its own right. (And for the record, my only past involvement here was moving the article from an inappropriate category to a more correct one in a batch of categorization cleanup.) There are no references here that constitute reliable sourcing for a Wikipedia article, and the article doesn't state anything about him that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have reliable sourcing — and even if a new version can be recreated in the future that makes a better claim of notability and cites better sources for it, he still doesn't get to create the article himself per WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The chart referred to is the ARIA physical singles chart which MKF did top. MKF also made the top 50 in the singles chart. See ARIA report 1024 for the peak and 1022 for the entry (links are to pdfs). duffbeerforme (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this dishonest boastful advetorial and let someone else start over. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VSCA. This spam was apparently created by the subject himself with few or little credible independent sources, and it's relly a wonder how this has survived on WP for so many years before being spotted for what it truly is. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. samee converse 20:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom nom nom. M A A Z T A L K 21:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dgheim Number[edit]

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

This seems to be a literal definition of "original research", seeing as how the page creator is one of the principal authors on every article used to source this thing (the Renksizbulut paper doesn't mention the subject as far as I can tell). A previous version of the page was nominated for deletion on much the same grounds, but G7'd shortly afterwards. Primefac (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article history shows copyvios and bouncing back and to from draft space. The article itself is at the level of an undergraduate physics text and not encyclopedic. All but one of the refs are primary and the other probably is too but is unsearchable. Recently created by an spa. Szzuk (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as junk science. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - I don't find independent coverage to support a NPOV version of an article on this topic/neologism, on top of what is discussed above. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lead of the article claims that this number is the product of itself and either of two other numbers, implying that both the Prandtl number and the Schmidt number must always equal one, which is obvious nonsense. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barony (Video Game)[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Barony" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Game is non-notable. No reviews on Metacritic. All sourcing is from Steam. Fails WP:GNG Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I thought that the things I cited (patchnotes, changelogs etc.) were allowed to be cited from the creators own stuff since that's basically the only place that would have that information. My apologies, and I'll see if I can find some better sources. --LichWizard (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is fine. But, the subject itself still needs to pass WP:GNG. You need reliable, secondary in-depth sources that talk about the subject. I did a search, but found nothing that would lead me to think this was covered in this way. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand. I guess since the game isn't super popular it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, which I understand. --LichWizard (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just so you know somebody has changed it from Barony (Video game) to Barony (video game). They also added it to a bunch of categories. --LichWizard (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, LichWizard, it's been moved due to the phrase "(Video Game)" not meeting WP:MOSVG Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand why, I was just letting people know so they would be directed to the correct page ;) --LichWizard (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find anything in RSes discussing the game, certainly no reviews or the like. --Masem (t) 14:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The video game search engine is not interesting. --Izno (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Every link is a primary source to Steam's store page. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Victor Frankenstein. Sandstein 16:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Victor von Frankenstein[edit]

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

Non-notable minor movie character; Although he was important in a series of films, he is not notable all together. 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 13:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the original characters page and include some short info there. Character's notability is not sufficient for an individual article. Wikitigresito (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect to Victor Frankenstein. He's already sufficiently covered in the Film section there. (This article should never have been alive, alive, alive!) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Victor Frankenstein is the best option.Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible Wonder Games[edit]

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

Sourced only by iTunes, its own website, and a republisher of press releases. The only reason I don't tag it A7/G11 is in deference to the contributors who have handled the page over the years. Cabayi (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ping previous (non-bot, non-IP) contributors, X201, Katharineamy, Bearcat, Darkskynet, NatGertler -- Cabayi (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - weak Google results, dead website suggest that nothing of value has been gained since I tagged it for notability six years ago. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. X201 (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The VG search engine returns nothing. Delete for lack of notability. --Izno (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To qualify for a Wikipedia article, a video game development company needs to be referenced to reliable source coverage about the company — but this is sourced entirely to its own self-published content about itself, including press releases and the buy-it or play-it links to its own games on app stores and Flash game sites. This is not how you source a company as notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't pass any version of WP:GNG. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceel Garas[edit]

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

Non-notable waterhole. Mangoe (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the usual V and GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roadside attraction[edit]

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

Delete Not notable and unreferenced. There is no source proving that a roadside attraction would become popular in the late 1930s. There is no proof that they are advertised with billboards. There is also no source indicating what a "roadside attraction" actually means. It does attract tourists but it doesn't have a source to prove it. Evil Idiot (talk) 12:14, 6 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 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

blazingly obvious keep Yeah, it's poorly sourced, but if the nominator thinks this isn't a notable topic, they need to get out and read some. And take a trip to Wall Drug. Mangoe (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- As Mangoe says the sourcing leaves much to be desired, but there are significant sources in the world. See e.g. New Encyclopedia of Southern Culture not to mention innumerable guidebooks. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added several sources, including inline citations. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:N. See [5] for starters. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, plenty of useable citations available, article now has some, lots of books discuss subject, article lists some, here are a couple more 125 Wacky Roadside Attractions, Minnesota Marvels: Roadside Attractions in the Land of Lakes. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was clearly an issue of sourcing not notability. WP:NOT#DICTIONARY doesn't apply as the concept goes beyond just the definition. The term is in wide use over several decades across at least two continents. There are even Wikipedia categories for roadside attractions (not an indicator of notability but does show just how common this term is). freshacconci (✉) 13:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I drove past Wall Drug in 1993 and still feel the attraction.Nominator must not have ever been on a long car trip. There is voluminous literature on the theory of such attractions. No brainer keep. 104.163.158.37 (talk) 06:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article does need improvement, but it is about a real and reliably sourceable concept. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fernanda Alves (model)[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NMODEL, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG. Like a lot of beauty pageant winners (there is no NBEAUTY yet), this is a case of WP:BLP1E. No significant coverage online in WP:RS, just passing mentions about having won Miss International 1996, or for being married to a multimillionaire. This was correctly redirected to Miss International 1996 by User:SwisterTwister a year ago, but now that it's been re-created (apparently in good faith) at Fernanda Alves (Miss International) with rather more detail and a few WP:RS, it seemed best to take it to AFD, especially after User:GSS-1987 noted at Talk:Fernanda Alves (model) that there was little point in merging the new fork to the original. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the forked article mentioned above, for completeness' sake:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fernanda Alves.PRehse (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it. Fernanda Alves appears to have originally created about the Portuguese beauty pageant winner, AFD'd in 2016, and then a new article created two months ago about the Brazilian volleyball player of the same name. There is also a lost Brazilian child currently in the news with this name. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the "(Miss International)" version and Delete the "(model)" version. This is a person who competed at the highest level of her field. Doing this creates the presumption that reliable sources do exist, even if they haven't been found yet. This is the same presumption that is applied to virtually every other structured system of organized competition covered by Wikipedia and there is no reason why it shouldn't be applied here, as well. And in this particular case, the argument becomes even stronger when we note that the subject was the first woman from her country to have won one of (what was then) the Big Three international pageants. It is utterly implausible to suggest that she did not receive substantive coverage in the newspapers and magazines of Portugal. But she did this in the mid '90s, which puts it beyond the reach of most on-line searching. Identifying those sources requires only that someone be willing to spend some time in a library in Lisbon. Until then, the article can be trimmed down a bit and left as a stub to be expanded later. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: does not meet WP:NMODEL & significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giacomo Aragall[edit]

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

Not NPOV. Entire article reads like a fan wrote it. No sources. Sanctaria (talk) 10:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sanctaria. This is very much like a fancruft. But is this person notable? If so, adding in sources would solve the problem. EROS ^message 10:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Rule one of AfD is "ignore the present state of the article and check the sources." In this case there are plenty per AP:ARTIST. For instance, see Rough Guide to Opera, which cites a number of reviews of Aragall's work. See Aragall's entry in Divo, another review of the guy's work from Stereo Review (this one looks like a bare listing from the snippet, but it's not. The review discusses Aragall's role in some detail :"Of the three principal artists, Giacomo Aragall seems most involved with the dramatic goings-on. His durable voice is equal to Cavaradossi's rhetorical outbursts and capable of the lyricism required in his arias. If Aragall does not have the most beautiful tenor imaginable, he is convincing in this part, to which he brings a feeling of urgency.") And so on. Clear keep, as I said. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ignore present state of the article and check the sources. But there are no sources listed on the article that an editor can check. What you've mentioned here seems to be sources you went and found yourself - which is great, don't get me wrong - but they aren't sources/references that are listed on the article at all. Sanctaria (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? First of all, article content does not determine notability and secondly, nominators are expected to check for sources before nominating. This guy is notable, a cursory check with GBooks showed that he was notable, you evidently failed to complete this cursory but required check. This is a bad nomination per well-established WP policy. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough. Your tone seems to be quite pointed, though. I'm not sure it's called for especially when all I'm trying to do is help. Sanctaria (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your intentions are good, which provide paving stones for a famous road. The effect is to create even more work for others. Please read the relevant policies before making more nominations. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 192.160.216.52 is correct and Sanctaria should have done some work beyond just looking at the article. See WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "Wrap it up"? In response to 192.160.216.52's points, I did say "that's fair enough". I now agree with keeping the article because of what he pointed out. I was just saying his tone was a bit pointed - even WP:DNB suggests to avoid using intensifiers. I feel like I'm getting piled on at this point, just for making a suggestion. Sanctaria (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the first version of my comment said "wrap it up" and then I removed that phrase in the interests of not being combative, but you saw it first. You are correct about not biting newcomers, but you now have the opportunity to learn about some important Wikipedia policies. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The gentleman has a robust entry at AllMusic and sufficient coverage in the European opera/classical community (not all in English). Here are some examples: [6], [7], [8], and there has been an entire book on him: [9]. Article needs expansion and cleanup, not deletion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please - Aragall clearly meets the notability guidelines for music at WP:MUSIC. Not only he has significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources as mentioned above, he also has multiple recordings on Decca, a major record label. Zingarese (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loungent Technologies[edit]

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

There is a claim they own something notable, but I cannot find a reference to this. Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion: This article consist of only one line. It hardly satisfy anything. No elaboration, no infobox, most importantly no sources. I vote a no for this article. EROS ^message 11:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's a fictitious company from ifMUD, and not independently notable enough for an article. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- A WP:BEFORE cant find anything about his Loungent Technologies. Fail WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of animated box office bombs[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:D916:B41F:C1C2:BE5A - Their rationale: "Redundant to List of box office bombs, some that is listed is there in List of box office bombs, some of them is way under $70,000,000 loss. Possibly contains unsupported sources." I am not taking a position on this AfD myself. Iffy★Chat -- 08:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Followng my comments at Talk:List_of_box_office_bombs#Merger_proposal. List of box office bombs covers animated films too and includes 12 of the 18 films listed at List of animated box office bombs. Merging the two would have resulted in two-thirds duplication, and I don't really see the need to consider live-action and animated films separately when both forms are already adequately represented by the one list. The only reason for having a separate list is if there is a representation problem and that clearly isn't the case here. Betty Logan (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Activate (organisation)[edit]

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

Delete - no notability, not endorsed by Conservative Party (UK) so just a private company Theandastorm (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC) correction, Activate is not a private company as in it is not registered with Company House.[reply]

Keep - even a cursory look at the sources shows that there is significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, so the group easily meets the relevant notability guideline. --bonadea contributions talk 09:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SUSTAINED. Almost all coverage is from August and September 2017. From WP:SUSTAINED: Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability.. This group isn't notable enough for a permanent encyclopedia entry. Ralbegen (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Recent coverage including the Vice article listed below shows that the group has received something approaching sustained coverage, at least since its inception. Whilst remaining sceptical of the long-term notability of this group, it should stay for the time being. In time it will be clear whether these are brief bursts of coverage or whether these are part of sustained coverage over a longer period of time. Ralbegen (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep The launch of this unofficial online voice for British Conservative Party activist was covered by the British press in Aug. 2017 hereThe Times Tory rival for Momentum is ridiculed over £500 fee], here: The Independent, Activate – a youth group that young people can finally get gassed about, and other national dailies. Articles in The Guardian and The Independent cited on the page, more available in New Statesman Sept. 2017 The short life and brutal death of Activate, the Tory Momentum. A few dozen articles in a simple gNews search, almost all from Sept. 2017 when the fledgling Conservative outfit embarrassed itself. Org.'s twitter account is still active. I don't see a plausible redirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even today this organisation was mentioned by major media outlets https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/7xde7g/we-snuck-into-the-tory-momentum-re-launch-party. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.249 (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bhanu Dhamija[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and thus, too soon to get an entry in the encyclopedia. Dial911 (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage in reliable sources. Listed references are not independent and a quick search returns only self-published sources. The claim about the largest media company also appears to be false. samee converse 08:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jahnome McEwan[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. To begin, any discussion about notability will hinge on GNG, as though the subject has a book, it was self-published and thus WP:AUTHOR is not met. As far as GNG is concerned, WP:SIGCOV is the main issue with the article; a good-faith search turns up the sources cited by the article, but these are simply not enough to establish notability. Two can be dismissed easily; one is a blog [10] that heavily features quotes from an interview with the subject (thus it is neither reliable nor third party, in addition to depth of coverage issues), and the other is a radio interview [11] with the subject that is likewise not independent from the subject. The third source (an article [12] by globeandmail.ca) is better, but again it places a heavy emphasis on an interview with the subject, and much of the article is not related to McEwan at all and is rather concerning costs associated with college. Note that I have seen the globeandmail article re-posted at least twice on other sites. In short, the article subject has not accrued the significant, in-depth, independent coverage required for inclusion in an encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliavle independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here hands him an automatic notability freebie just because he exists, but the referencing is not cutting it for getting him over WP:GNG. People get over a Wikipedia inclusion criterion by being the subject of coverage in reliable sources, not by being the interview guest who's speaking about something other than himself or by self-publishing his own web presence or by getting profiled on a bank's corporate blog — so the Rob Carrick article in The Globe and Mail is the only source here that even starts to build a case for notability, but one viable source doesn't finish the case for notability all by itself if it isn't verifying anything that would constitute an "inherent" notability claim (such as winning the Governor General's Award for English-language non-fiction for his book.) No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when there's a stronger basis for notability and better sourcing for it, but Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which he's entitled to have an article just because he exists. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Cohen (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP: NHOCKEY.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noted, fails WP:NHOCKEY. If/When he passes notability, the article can be recreated. Kaiser matias (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Non-notable retired player. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 16:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and coverage appears to be just routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Nick: "A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events): and G11: Unambigious promotional content and quite possibly G3: Blatant hoax, none of the claims can be verified using sources presented in article, or online elsewhere" (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 13:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zaan Vaz[edit]

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

I cannot see any coverage or even passing mention in RS. therefore fails to meet even basic GNG. maybe this is some kind of hoax? the IMDb refer to some actor Zain Khan. Saqib (talk) 06:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 or possible G3. It has been recreated under a few different names and deleted many times please see Zaan khan, Zaan Khan, Zaan Ali, Zaan Khna and now this. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Actors of Bollywood[edit]

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

WP:Listcruft and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. whats next? Hindu Actors of Bollywood? Saqib (talk) 06:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non notable cross categorisation. Ajf773 (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yes, no need to specify religious groups within categories. London Hall (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MT Train^Talk 16:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. samee converse 20:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Bekian[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Of the 23 sources, I don't find a single one that provides any in-depth independent coverage. Appears to be created/edited by people with a COI. MB 05:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a quick online search also didn't produce anything to justify a Wikipedia page. London Hall (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable businessman, fails WP:GNG. FITINDIA 03:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after Googling, didn't appear any valid results, threrupon fails GNG.آریانا فغان (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rojina Shrestha[edit]

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

Non-notable model and beauty pageant contestant and appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. There is no evidence to satisfy WP:NMODEL and no significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources to support general notability guideline. I'm also nominating the following article for the same reason. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sahara Basnet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several concerns about this nomination. The first is the bundling of two distinct articles into a single nomination. Was this done simply because they are both women from Nepal? If so, that's a terrible reason for bundling nominations. Especially so, given that one of the subjects is a delegate to a minor regional pageant, but the other is a delegate to the Miss Universe pageant. The latter has an annual global viewership of something on the order of 1 billion people and the deletion discussion for that person is likely to proceed along different lines. I encourage the nominator to withdraw the second name and open up a separate discussion for that second article.
As for the rationales for deletion, it's puzzling that the nominator cites WP:NMODEL, because neither subject's "claim to fame" is as a model. Equally inapplicable is the appeal to WP:BLP1E. So that leaves only the observation that there are no reliable sources out there. Maybe so, but both subjects are from Nepal and in-country sources are more likely to be in the Nepali language and written in the Devanagari script. Is the nominator telling us that there are no useful sources in that script? Would the nominator be willing to back that up with a second search template using the subjects' names written in the Devanagari script? If not, then it's difficult to see how a proper WP:BEFORE has been done. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NewYorkActuary: The reason nominating both article at one place is not what you are assuming but if you look at both articles you will find same issue, same sources and created by the same user. A Google News search for रोजिना श्रेष्ठ and सहारा बस्नेत turns up only 16 results for both and almost same sources about the same event and 6 out 16 for Rojina Shrestha are about a different person who has the same name. I actually don't see a clear reason in your vote above that why this article should be kept so can you please explain why this article should not be deleted and how BLP1E is inapplicable? Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 19:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC) (update: 19:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for following up on this. It is indeed true that my first posting was limited to "meta" issues. But I'll be happy to expand on it now.

Wikipedia offers wide coverage of entertainment topics, includes those that involve structured systems of organised competition. In virtually all of the latter topics, the general rule is that people will be viewed as presumptively notable if they have competed at the highest levels in their fields. Thus, Wikipedia offers "completist" coverage of people who have competed in the top levels of badminton, curling, kickboxing, and rodeo (just to name a few). To date, no one has offered any cogent reason why this same criterion should not also apply to international pageantry, whose "Big Four" events have global viewership that dwarfs that of most of the athletic competitions. And that's why I think it advisable to separate the two nominations. Basnet's top level of competition was at the minor international pageant, Miss Asia Pacific. If this article were separately nominated, I probably wouldn't even show up for the discussion. But Shrestra is a different ballgame. Shrestra competed at Miss Earth, which is in the highest level of pageantry competitions (i.e., the Big Four international beauty pageants).

As for WP:BLP1E, its very terms limit its application to low-profile individuals. A person who gets on stage for a televised event and meets with the press, and then gets on a plane to travel to another country to do it all over again, is most definitely not trying to maintain a "low profile". WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here.

Thank you also for providing the names in the Devanagari script. In a few minutes, I'm going to take the liberty of adding complete "search" templates for both of them. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This gives pretty much the same results as the links already provided by GSS-1987. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NewYorkActuary: I respect your judgement but I still can't see any coverage or notability outside being on the list of top four at Miss Nepal 2017 and yes Shrestra competed like many others but was not the winner or runner-up which is insufficient for a stand-alone article. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I share your sentiments. It's perfectly possible to have rational reasons for being on either side of this debate. I see it as a question of whether we need these types of articles to be full biographies, or can be satisfied with something less. And for this latter view, I look to articles such as Mike McCahey, Emma Grant and Al Dwight. All of these are very brief and are sourced only to a single on-line database. There's something else they have in common -- they would almost certainly survive a deletion discussion, because the "keep" votes would argue that they competed at the top levels of their fields. And that's the paradigm that I'm looking at. Shrestha competed at the top level of her field (by competing at Miss Earth) and, by wide-ranging consensus in articles on other systems of organised competition, that should be enough to keep the article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I personally don't believe we should have a stand-alone article on every individual who competed in a beauty contest unless they end up winning the show or at least meet our notability criteria such as WP:GNG. Pinging Johnpacklambert to see if he would like to say anything. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 15:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks in depth coverage and is WP:TOSOON. FITINDIA 03:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Safee Siddiqui[edit]

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

Apparently the subject has produced/directed only one short film (has no Wikipedia entry ) which earned him some award as this article claims, but verification fails via independent RS. The subject also seems fails to meet basic GNG. Saqib (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't pass notability guidelines at present, so i'll say delete. M A A Z T A L K 15:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IDEAL model[edit]

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

The article is poorly sourced, the only external link is broken, and it reads like an advertisement for a rather non-notable system/company. ThePortaller (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks like a University project or PhD thesis, there are refs but they are mostly unsearchable and the two that aren't are 404s. This sniffs as non notable. Not many edits since creation and could possibly have been prodded. Szzuk (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Best management practice for water pollution leaving a redirect, but remove the spam section. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of the merge suggestion vs. a straight delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Broken links, etc. aside I'm not seeing a strong case for notability. Though none of us can really seem to find the cited research articles, from the way they're used in the article I'm pretty confident the first 3 have nothing to do with the article topic, having been written years before the topic was created. Rather, they're all being used to verify the claim that The model's runoff treatment algorithms are process-based by predicting runoff rates and pollutant loads and routing these loadings through BMPs using technologies which have been experimentally validated. Essentially, it's taking citations the model's research papers also used to verify that claim, but citing the original source, not the research paper. We're left with two papers by the same set of authors and an EPA manual. The manual, though it too is a broken link, isn't even about the IDEAL model, it was just written by the same author as the two papers. I don't think it's notable enough even in the field of Best management practice for water pollution to warrant more than a mention, so I'm not sure if any merging needs to take place. Pinguinn 🐧 05:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was originally considering that the EPA Additional guide (see 11-15 to 11-16) gave some useful information. Which it does. However the problem is is that it in the pages around it provides a dozen or more specialised variants related to aspects of BMP. In effect, it seems to provide some reliability while getting rid of actual notability, at least in terms of a merge. IDEAL makes up too small an aspect of BMP with so many other potential variations, I would say. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Procedural close as no rationale for deletion has been given. Renomination is allowed but only after WP:BEFORE is conducted. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dominick LoFaro[edit]

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

{{{text}}} ThePlane11 (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 03:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. There is no reason suggested for deletion. --Doncram (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Ready to be closed, ASAP. I am not finding, within wp:AFD, where this outcome is explained, but I know it is a regular, guideline-approved approach. This is ready to be closed immediately, by anyone, admin or not. Please do close this. No prejudice against the nominator creating a new deletion nomination at a future date. --Doncram (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep – Helped bring down Gotti. Referenced in the Washington Post, New York Times, UPI and New York Magazine to name a few. In addition, profiled in numerous books, to many to mention here. But can be seen here. [13] with regards to the Mafia. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – Article could need a clean-up and additional sources. But it is notable per Gotti association and plenty of sources available.BabbaQ (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Ayling[edit]

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

Non-notable filmmaker lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. WP:TOOSOON. reddogsix (talk) 02:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nominator. FITINDIA 03:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It's not enough to assume that sources may exist; per WP:V, these sources do need to be actually found and cited. Sandstein 16:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kalisochina Adrustum[edit]

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

Can't find any reviews; and none of the given sources constitute such. Appears insufficiently notable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as it has a notable director and cast and has a theatrical release it is hard to imagine that it wasn't reviewed in reliable sources. As it was released in 1968 those Indian press reviews are unfortunately not on the internet Atlantic306 (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone who can do Hindi searches can turn something up; quite outside my capabilities though. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N. Harsh Rathod 17:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:32, 5 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 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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