Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 May	23 May >

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 Procedural close. Relisting at RfD. (non-admin closure) Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indomina Releasing[edit]

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

This article created by a well known sockpuppeteer, Alma Fordy. It was created by this user who was blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. No sources available and no information about the article. Evil Idiot (talk) 15:17, 22 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. Academic Challenger (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Muharram[edit]

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

I can't find confirmation that he has played a game in a professional league per WP:NFOOTBALL. ... discospinster _talk 23:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence he has played any game in a fully professional league. We really need to make the inclusion standards for footballers more stringent, because that is a ludicously low standard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comment by discospinster. Barbara ✐ ✉ 01:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:30, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pia Silva[edit]

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

No independent, reliable sources. Sources are Forbes "Contributors" and the subject herself. Vexations (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - The one independent reference does not even contain the name Pia Silva. The others are created by the topic/person herself/himself/neutral object pronoun. Delete per nomination. Barbara ✐ ✉ 01:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a long line of articles on non-notable businesspeople in positions like "brand stretegist". Wikipedia is meant to have articles on people who are notable, not to be a way for people to propel themselves to notability. Despite what some think, Wikipedia is not meant to be used like Linkedin. I am totally serious in my statement, I have a friend who thought Wikipedia could properly be used to advance someone's job search.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree there is no evidence that she meets the notability guidelines. Million_Moments (talk) 09:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:09, 29 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmin Barujibi[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken to locate said sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. The bulk of what is available online are user-generated or wiki mirrors. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Barbara ✐ ✉ 01:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Enigma^msg 19:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marlene (Japanese singer)[edit]

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

Owing to her single name WP:BEFORE was tricky but I was unable to find any evidence of credibility and article and sources doen't present any obvious evidence of notability. I tagged for A7 and was reverted by an IP so going regular AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - The first reference is a copyright violation and I concur with Barkeep49. Barbara ✐ ✉ 01:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the same COPYVIO report [1] but decided that it wasn't really that owing to most of the text in common being the listing. A better job of paraphrasing should definitely have been done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have at the least taken care of the copyvio issue, and the history can be cleaned up as needed. Dekimasuよ! 08:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix. It's hard to source the older Oricon charts online because their site only gives data from post-1988, but I believe she had at least two albums that charted in the top 10 nationally in the early 1980s. If anyone has access to Oricon Album Chart Book: Complete Edition 1970-2005 (ISBN 4-87131-077-9), that would give the Oricon rankings, or maybe someone knows a better way to prove this for AfD purposes. Jazz.co.jp claims that the rankings were #8 for Deja Vu and #5 for Magic ([2]) with sales over 200K. Anyway, the Oricon site verifies lower charting albums later in her career. Further, Deja Vu was also in the top 50 albums in sales for the year of 1983 ([3]) and she seems to have hit #1 in the USEN Western music chart in 1986 ("Left Alone" which was the theme song for the 1986 film Cabaret). She is significant enough to have had a greatest hits album released by Sony Japan in 2005 after having an earlier greatest hits released in 1988. The Japanese Wikipedia article is at ja:マリーン. Passes WP:MUSICBIO #2, #3, and #5 at the very least. Dekimasuよ! 07:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the scanty English coverage. Manila Bulletin ran a story on her in 2016 that I can't get to render right: Marlene dela Peña: Highest paid Pinay jazz artist in Japan. And a not-too-flattering review from Japan Times in 2007: Marlene meets Masato Honda. Dekimasuよ! 08:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because there is a delete vote I can't withrdraw and Speedy Keep myself but Dekimasu's resources prove notability to me (and has access to Japanese language material that I didn't have when doing my own BEFORE). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Speedy Close - It appears that Barkeep49 has withdrawn the nomination. I considered doing a non-admin closure myself but Barkeep is correct that the one Delete vote above has probably muddied the procedural waters. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NMUSIC and has rs coverageAtlantic306 (talk) 09:12, 27 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. Enigma^msg 19:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of film supervillains[edit]

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

No sources, extremely poorly formatted, woefully incomplete and lacking context to the list entries. I do not see how this article serves an encyclopedic purpose. JDDJS (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls under listcruft even if someone attempted to complete it; and the definition of a film "supervillain" is arbitrary. I certainly wouldn't call Godzilla a supervillain by the definition I know of - he is simply a monster who rampages indiscriminately, and is even a hero at points in the series._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete - I think it's pretty funny (but then I think a lot of articles are pretty funny) So, since 2008 this article has existed and even edited by a bunch of good faith editors? It still lacks refs. It still could become a referenced article by 2028. The list is also pretty incomplete. If someone wants to recreate it at some point with refs I can see it being a notable topic. But not right now. (Godzilla was a hero?) Barbara ✐ ✉ 01:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is unsourced and the definition of supervising is arbitrary so it looks like original research. The topic may be notable, though, but not in the current form. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too subjective and not specific, most films have a vilain of some sort, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rolling Stone notwithstanding, films have villains and comics have supervillains. Go figure. In any case, as Atlantic306 has noted, the vast majority of films have villains. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At present it really lacks the specific reasonable point for preserving it as a stand-alone article. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless. Deb (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look also at List of black supervillains. If this one is deleted, that should be deleted too (Afd discussion is open there too) Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 17:35, 29 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. Enigma^msg 19:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of black supervillains[edit]

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

No sources and no context is provided for majority of the characters on the list. JDDJS (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced listcruft. No evidence for why such a categorization is merited._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I love list articles because they offer an alternative to categorization. All the supervillians are blue links to notable supervillians. Barbara ✐ ✉ 01:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment do you have a policy based in reason for keeping them or do you just like it? JDDJS (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. We generally do not cross categorise based on skin colour. Ajf773 (talk) 09:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All entries are blue-linked and verifiable. This list pairs with Ethnic stereotypes in comics, which needs work but is a notable topic with adequate coverage. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The book that you link to is about black superheroes, not black supervillains. JDDJS (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let the title fool you - it discusses bad guys too. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid and emcyclopedic list article. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How so?? Ajf773 (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems to me that some, if not most, of these supervillains (whatever that means) can be played by either a black or a white actor. For example, Catwoman is listed as black, but in only some of the Batman series. She's been played by Julie Newmar and Michelle Pfeiffer, among others, and was apparently inspired by Jean Harlow - you can't get much whiter than that! I suggest that we don't need this list any more than we need a List of white supervillains or a List of Asian supervillains or a List of supervillains from minority groups. It can only serve to create controversy. Deb (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that because a character can be (or has been) given a race lift, that their race is not worth noting? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - What do you mean by a "race lift"? What I'm saying is that a list of black supervillains - if it were useful, which I don't think it is - should list black supervillains, not white supervillains that have been played by black actors. Deb (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Race lifting is when a character's race is changed when a story is retold or adapted. It's a pun on face lift. In your example of Catwoman, Halle Berry was portraying a black woman in her film, so the character was black in that film. She wasn't playing a white character. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for the explanation. But Catwoman is white in most screen portrayals and, most importantly, white in the original comics. So how can she be considered a black supervillain? Deb (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I wouldn't include her on the list myself, but the fact that she has been portrayed by black actors doesn't seem like a good rationale for deleting this list. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the subjects are notable, the list is not. A category may suffice, a standalone article is not necessary. This !vote goes together with that for List of film supervillains Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 15:16, 29 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. Enigma^msg 21:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Big (Rocky and Bullwinkle)[edit]

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

Only appeared twice. Not a notable character JDDJS (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, though if somebody wants to merge this and other minor characters on Rocky and Bullwinkle (such as Gidney & Cloyd) to a single article it could be a redirect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A very minor character, not in the same league as Mr. Peabody or Dudley Do-Right (or even Horse). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:08, 27 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. Enigma^msg 19:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firre (military)[edit]

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

No sources, orphan, fails WP:GNG. May be a hoax. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom; no WP:RS sources and not notable for stand alone article/stub. Kierzek (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a hoax (this ""Family of Integrated Rapid Response Equipment" (FIRRE) - and if you google that - you'll get sources). This (per by BEFORE - might be wrong) short lived army program (circa 2006-8) might scrape by notability standards (as many army programs do) - but with the present article lacking sources, and with sourcing level being rather borderline (and leaning to the negative per my view) - it's a D.Icewhiz (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Notability is still marginal as before. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Party (UK)[edit]

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

Subject fails the WP:GNG. No inline sources represent significant coverage in reliable sources, and I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources.

This article has been deleted before, twice, under different names, here and here for lack of notability. Ralbegen (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Rather than delete outright, I suggest that the information about this party be merged and redirected into the Libertarianism in the United Kingdom article as its own subsection.JDuggan101 (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems sensible to me — though there's precious little material in this article other than from primary sources. Ralbegen (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I missed the subsequent four AfD discussions with Keep results, which was quite an embarrassing oversight... I've read through those discussions now, but I have been unable to find any compelling reasons that the subject meets notability criteria. There appear to have been lots of arguments presented that the party's article should exist by virtue of the party being active and standing candidates in national elections. Those do not seem to me like adequate arguments for inclusion. Ralbegen (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Added a third party source. This party is notable because it is active and runs candidates in elections. This should make it so we presume notability outright. Emass100 (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To add: Looking closer at the sources, there is a Daily Telegraph RS linked in the article. This, on top of the party actually running in elections, makes the article meet WP:GNG. I change my !vote to Speedy Keep: after 6 nominations, we shouldn't even be discussing this anymore. Emass100 (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being active and running candidates in elections doesn't confer notability in any way that's consistent with Wikipedia policies or guidelines. There's no such thing as inherent notability. It's usually conferred by significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. One article in the Telegraph does not meet the general notability guideline, which requires multiple reliable sources. Ralbegen (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a source from Politics.co.uk., so it does have multiple Reliable Sources. Emass100 (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph article is a now-deleted blog post that can be read here. The politics.co.uk interview constitutes, to at least some extent, routine election coverage. I don't think that these two sources mean that the article meets the WP:GNG. "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". Both articles are from the late 2000's — the party hasn't received continued coverage, and whilst notability is not temporary, failure to receive more than trivial coverage subsequent to the party's first year of existence does not count in its favour with regard to its lasting notability. Ralbegen (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"routine election converage" is an argument used to dismiss individual non-elected candidates in elections, which aren't notable unless they are elected. Individual candidates need to show outstanding coverage to be considered notable, like Jon Ossoff. For political parties, this is different, they only need to show they meet WP:GNG as an organisation. The Libertarian Party UK meets this by virtue of their multiple RS and their participation in elections. Also: the Libertarian Party UK did receive multiple third party coverage subsequently. Emass100 (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Precedent is in favour of Keep. A nomination for deletion spree of minor UK parties in december of 2014 lead to all of them haveng Keep results except 1, which was a recreation of an article already deleted with nothing but self-published sources. This article is better sourced than many of these articles, and this one got National coverage on top of that. Emass100 (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the editor who tried time and time again to delete this article, can I try one last time. They have never satisfied notability guidelines. No media coverage, no election success, no notable people involved. I argued over each and every deletion attempt that they were not notable enough for Wikipedia. I hope that you are successful where I was not. doktorb _words^deeds 20:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question for User:Emass100 . Do you have any direct connection with the Libertarian Party which you might need to disclose? doktorb _words^deeds 21:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I'm not even british, nor a libertarian. You can see on my userpage that I am a canadian, and supporter of the Center-left New Democratic party. I also never made any edits on any page regarding libertarianism. I truly believe that this article meets WP:GNG, which is the consensus position of the 5 previous Afds for this article. Emass100 (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks User:Emass100. I apologise if my question was a touch pointed or rude, it was not intended to be, and I could have asked you away from this page rather than draw attention to it here. Thanks for your response :) doktorb _words^deeds 07:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - No worries, it's fine. Emass100 (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete how did this survive so many prior AfDs? The article is source-bombed, but they're all primary sources to election results or the party's own website, deadlinks, or a couple non-trivial articles! I had difficulty finding any independent sources during a WP:BEFORE search. Fails WP:GNG pretty easily. I have never seen a guideline showing presumptive notability for a registered political party, either. SportingFlyer talk 05:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support turning any salvageable content from the article into a section of another page, rather than deleting it outright. Since they stand in by-elections, I would appreciate somewhere to link to (even if it is just an article on Libertarianism generally). On that note, keep the party colour and shortname irrespective of the decision in this AfD. Maswimelleu (talk) 07:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I've reformatted the article and cut out some of the truly non-notable content, as well as re-using some sources and introducing a few more. There are pretty few secondary sources on the party, but I wouldn't describe it as an instant WP:GNG fail. Having trawled for more I'm willing to side with keep, although not with any amount of conviction. There is direct and in-depth mention of them across a number of secondary sources, but we ought to be cautious about embellishing the article with too much. It quickly turns into a promotional piece for their leaders and candidates otherwise. The fact that they seldom contest elections and always do very badly doesn't negate the fact that they are mildly visible in the media and it is possible to find a reasonable amount of independent discussion of them. Maswimelleu (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maswimelleu — Thanks for your contributions both to this discussion and to the article. I'd be interested to see the additional material you've found about them, because I don't think that the referencing used in this article is enough to satisfy the GNG, with online magazine interviews with the party's leaders and a short newspaper blogpost. Ralbegen (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the notability bar for political parties is extremely low, and [4] plus the various primary references is enough. There are still content issues with the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IB Times reference and primary sources definitely don't satisfy the GNG... Where is it established that political parties have a lower threshold for notability that the GNG requirement? Ralbegen (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not lower than WP:GNG, but really just enough to push them over the line. If you go check the fifth nomination discussion, you can see a list of AfDs of British political parties from December 2014. All of them were kept except one, which was a recreation of an article already deleted. Some of the articles that were kept were more poorly sourced than this one. The reason for this is that being registered as a party and participating in elections make you notable as well, which was the argument used to keep most of them. Emass100 (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the use of this argument led to several 'keep' decision is previous AfDs. I don't understand the policy basis, and I haven't seen it demonstrated to my satisfaction.

Having gone back to that AfD, I've found this !vote from Spinningspark which more clearly articulates my view on the article's relationship with the GNG, and registration contribution to notability, than I can. Ralbegen (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTROUTINE for clarification on what is and is not routine coverage. While non-elected candidates are usually considered non-notable as per WP:ROUTINE, I have never seen this argument being successfully used against a political party, and their "routine coverage" is instead used to demonstrate they do meet the WP:N. Emass100 (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're referring to a reply above. I'm sorry for using language with specific meaning in a casual sense; my intention was to describe the material as not constituting terribly substantial coverage. I think the argument from the last nomination I linked above does a good job of dealing with the coverage. In particular, the consideration of interview material as primary. Ralbegen (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. However, this party did recieve coverage in multiple secondary sources. There is the Telegraph article and the one described in this !vote, which sadly has succombed to link rot, but can still be used to establish notability. Emass100 (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The contribution of the Telegraph blogpost towards meeting the GNG is also dealt with in the linked !vote better than I can. The contribution you've cited there is from a user arguing that as the Telegraph blogpost and the now-extinct Bristol Post piece are the best sources available, notability criteria are not met and therefore the article should be deleted. Which is a position I also advocate. Ralbegen (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, those make the subject meet the GNG, which is the position I advocate. Combined with the fact it is a registered political party which stood in elections, then the article must be kept. Emass100 (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG requires substantial coverage. To my reading, the user you've quoted is arguing that the sources provided don't constitute substantial coverage. You're welcome to ping the user in question to clarify their argument and the substance of the now-deleted article — as they voted delete in the last AfD, I'm wary of canvassing behaviour by doing so myself.

With regard to the party being registered and having stood in elections, I have not seen any editor provide a policy basis for the claim that this contributes towards inclusion criteria. Ralbegen (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for all the reasons I gave last time. Forming a political party in the UK is simple. Any small bunch of crazies can do it. According to Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 there are 468 registered British parties. The requirements for registering and standing candidates are extremely low. You don't even need to register your party either – not registering just means you can't put the party logo on the ballot papers. There is no way that they are all notable so the closing admin should discount out of hand any rationale that claims this party is notable by way of having stood in elections. SpinningSpark 18:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being a registered party and standing in election shows the seriousness of the organisation, as well as giving them verifiability on all the official records. Seeing that political parties have always been kept in Afd when their notability was only partially established, these arguments cannot be dismissed out of hand. Emass100 (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Any registered political party that contests national elections is notable, no matter how minor. One wonders why this is being brought up for the seventh time. Emeraude (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the argument that has been made before, and on the basis of which the article has been kept before. I haven't seen a policy basis provided any of the times that this argument has been invoked — and I've linked before another user articulating the point better than I can. As you've asked why I nominated this article for deletion, I came to it from the Lewisham by-election article and started looking at how to tidy it up and move it away from reliance on self-sourcing. I couldn't find enough reliable sources to build an encyclopedic article from, and further that it doesn't have enough substantial coverage to pass the general notability guideline. In the end I only got rid of the most egregious section and nominated the article for deletion. Hopefully that clarifies my motivation. Ralbegen (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree. Do you think Above and Beyond Party are notable? Wikipedia can't be a holding pen for each and every attempt at party politics. doktorb _words^deeds 10:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the party you linked is notable as well. It has reliable coverage from secondary sources, and is a registered party that participated in elections, giving them verifiability in official records. Emass100 (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion of content, let alone of a subject in the encyclopedia. That's determined by notability. Lots of companies are registered with Companies House that participate in the economy. That doesn't mean they're notable. (This is a comment in general and about the Libertarian Party rather than about the Above and Beyond Party, which I'm not familiar with). Ralbegen (talk) 19:15, 27 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 20:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of male supervillains[edit]

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

It's not sourced at all. It's an orphan. It's an extremely incomplete list (doesn't even touch on any supervillains outside of comic books). I don't see how this has any encyclopedic at all. JDDJS (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More of a fit for Wikia then Wikipedia, pure fancruft. Not sure why you stopped there - almost every list in Category:Lists of fictional villains seems to be unreferenced listcruft save for a select few._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are thousands of articles for male supervillains listed in Category:Supervillains and subcats. This list would be totally impractical to complete, and would fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY if anyone bothered to attempt it. My guess is this was an attempt at symmetry with List of female supervillains, but this seems like a mistake for many reasons. Grayfell (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be a category, if it is to be anything at all. There's no article here. Vadder (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some of these characters don't even seem to have a gender, e.g. Venom (Marvel Comics character). Pburka (talk) 23:30, 23 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 20:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

J Nathan Bazzel[edit]

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

No evidence this person meets notability requirements. Kelly ^hi! 19:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to being a notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significant coverage in third-party reliable sources; doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines for actors. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Niteshift36 (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Mostly minor roles, nothing significant. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Some non-charting, not notable albums. As a director, she has directed a non-notable film and doesn't get past WP:DIRECTOR. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accprding to the entry: "Her first single, "The Message", reached #20 on Billboard's Dance/Club Play chart and was a crossover pop hit, peaking at #75 on the Hot 100 chart." This would make her notable per our criteria. Can someone verify? FloridaArmy (talk) 03:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard edition showing her at 79 on the hot 100 [5]. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Juno nominee. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This does need referencing improvement, certainly, but she does have a Juno Award nomination under her belt. Her name doesn't bring up any results on Billboard's chart search for me, but from another recent AFD discussion I have cause to believe that for some reason the Billboard search may be working differently in my browser than it is for other people — so I can't judge chart placement, but the Juno Award nomination definitely passes NMUSIC #8 (the Junos are even named right in #8 as one of the canonical examples of an award that passes it.) I've added two new sources gleaned from a ProQuest search. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find the Juno award when I looked (no need to be sarcastic about it being contained in the examples). Like you, I got nothing on charting from Billboard. I'll withdraw it the nom when I'm not mobile. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to dial your sarcasm detector settings back if you think I was being sarcastic. I was just mentioning a fact, that's all. Bearcat (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever dude.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:12, 29 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. Enigma^msg 19:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ventus (producer)[edit]

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

On Wikipedia, notability of musicians isn't established by the number of songs or the quality of the songs they produce - it's established by having several reliable independent sources that support the musician, or the musician has accomplished something significant that is proven to be true by reliable sources. Unfortunately, this article lacks both of those, and therefore seems to fail WP:NMG. Currently, none of the sources listed are reliable secondary sources, and I can't find any when searching Google either - article seems to have been created either by the musician himself or someone closely associated with him. Also, it's worth noting that a PROD tag was placed on the page that was removed by the page's creator, although it is true that the article is a lot better now than it was then. SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 18:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could not find any reliable sources coverage, if someone does find significant rs coverage please ping me, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't actually have any sources at all- they're just soundcloud links to the music. If anything, they should be listed as external links. It should never have been put into mainspace, and shouldn't stay there. Couldnt find anything to improve it either, the usual wikipedia mirrors and social media stuff is the only thing that came up. Curdle (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, absolutely no notability beyond his own social media. Richard3120 (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Orphan article, pure promotion by WP:SPA, suspect WP:COI, could not find any evidence of notability. How is this on Wikipedia for two years already? --IamNotU (talk) 13:12, 25 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. Enigma^msg 19:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brajesh Misra[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:JOURNALIST and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable at allHeshiv (talk) 10:29, 28 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. Enigma^msg 19:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Baig[edit]

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

Author of a non-notable book is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia. Currently, the subject fails both WP:AUTHOR and GNG. Wikipedia:NotJustYet Saqib (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. FITINDIA 19:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not at all a notable writer at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a little WP:TOOSOON for this first time novelist. There is a little RS, positive coverage of his debut novel, just not enough to pass WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:18, 23 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. Enigma^msg 19:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Binesh Balan[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLP1E. I have the feeling this repeatedly recreated article, which also went under another title, was designed as part of a PR campaign by dalit activists, perhaps even the subject himself. The sources are hopelessly contradictory, the claim to notability is effectively disputed by the state officials etc (it was just a bureaucratic delay, according to them) and the ongoing coverage seems to be slim because, well, it really was one event. Sitush (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BLP1E. The sources all cover the subject in the context of a controversy where he didn't receive funds to study in the UK, allegedly because of his background. Other than that he's an unremarkable student and there's no indication he won't stay that way. He started studying in the UK in summer of 2017, since then coverage has essentially disappeared. Hut 8.5 17:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear failure of one event notability guidelines for inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:30, 23 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 20:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Exchange ActiveSync clients[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIR, despite contested PROD. A talk page comment dating from December 2016 claims that the page is also outdated, and perhaps parts of it still are. High pageview count does not necessarily prove notability or encyclopedicity. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTGUIDE. Outdated content and not encyclopedic. Ajf773 (talk) 01:08, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 20:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rafay Baloch[edit]

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

Self-proclaimed ethical hackers are not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia, unless they meet GNG. The subject has received some press coverage (mention in passing) but nothing substantial information about him which enable us to create a proper stand-alone bio on the subject. Saqib (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this promotional article (created by a "consultant, marketing advisor, and proud wikipedian"). The claims of the subject's notability are supported by seemingly legitimate sources which, upon close inspection, prove to be trivial and worthless: Mention of name in a myriad-name list by Microsoft; one passing mention in a BBC article about bugs; etc. Local sources (such as this) provide straight up fawning verbiage, unworthy of sourcing. The subject's a young student. Give him time and he might make it here yet. -The Gnome (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: Your characterization of The Express Tribune as a "local source" seems off the mark. It's a national newspaper, and the only internationally-affiliated newspaper in Pakistan. The fact that there are two articles in that paper devoted to in-depth coverage of the subject suggests that the subject is notable. The fawning verbiage is to be expected when covering a young Pakistani who has made an impact on global tech companies. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. The newspaper is local; I see nothing "off the mark" in characterizing a Pakistani newspaper writing about a Pakistani subject as a "local source." I understand the reasons you give for the quality of their reporting. My assessment about the essential quality of the local sources' reporting remains unchanged. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This is a national newspaper providing coverage of a citizen of the same country as the newspaper. It is no different from the New York Times coverage of a US citizen. We don't make a distinction based on the size of the country. The only guideline we have about geography would be in WP:CORP#Audience, which requires that coverage be national or at least regional in scope. WP:GNG doesn't even have that restriction. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Size of the country"? What does the size of Pakistan have to do with anything? Where did I use the "size" of Pakistan in my arguments? Please clarify. -The Gnome (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I thought you may have been indirectly referring to size when you called it a "local source", which it isn't. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When we talk about a subject from, for example, Freedonia, and discuss the quality and trustworthiness of a source, we might comment that it is not a western/English source but a Freedonian source, a local source. Sometimes, in assessing the trustworthiness of information, we even demand to have local sources. The term is not derogatory but simply descriptive. The aforementioned newspaper has very large circulation and is written in English; it's still a (valid) local source, in my lexicon. In general, most articles in this Wikipedia, the English-language one, are mainly supported by local sources, i.e. western based ones, written in English. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If this reads like too west-centered a viewpoint, let me assure that it isn't. It's merely a description of how things work in every culture. Locality differs across locales! -The Gnome (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Agree This is not such a thing that you described, because he has many notable works. Just like Tavis_Ormandy. He also belongs to same category. He is featured on international and national media too. Yes there are some local sources but these sources are highly appreciated in Pakistan.Zulqarnain Haider (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC) Note: This user is creator of the BLP[reply]

@IamZulqarnain: Have you been paid to create this bio? --Saqib (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: I'm not paid to create this bio. He gave us seminar on Cyber Security and Penetration in our University, SO I read about him and found that this person should be on Wikipedia. because he also has given many seminars in out of countries too. He also starts his company/startup in Pakistan for security of webs and platforms and buit his own products. But I'm not here publicize his company or product. I'm only here after reading his notable works.Zulqarnain Haider (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and heavily promotional. I agree that WP:TOOSOON may apply. --bonadea contributions talk 12:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reason Could someone please give me reason or suggestion that how to improve this or what are the factors which doesn't meet Wikipedia notable criteria.Zulqarnain Haider (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some links that I've found to be useful to me: on the notability of an article's subject; a general notability guideline; the whole shebang about N; specifically about biographies; what to be careful about when editing a biography of a living person; how to create a draft and get community input. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple instances of significant coverage in a national news publication, per my comments above. Pretty obviously meets WP:GNG. The 'delete' comments aren't grounded in Wikipedia guidelines. If the guidelines are lacking, then propose changes in the appropriate talk pages, but for the purposes of this discussion, it looks like the basic notability requirements are met. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: Before nom this BLP for deletion, I had a look at the coverage in the Express Tribune but I found it insufficient. This and this does not address the subject directly and in detail, as GNG requre. There is no biographical information in these two news stories about the subject. --Saqib (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed source need not cover biographical information, it needs only to provide coverage of the subject. In this case, they cover the subject's work. That is sufficient. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you yourself acknowledge that the coverage in the Express Tribune discuss the subject's work not the subject himself so I don't think they meet the GNG. I read somewhere where @Hut 8.5: said "GNG requires that at least one or two sources have to cover the subject directly and in detail. It must be more than a passing mention and it must devote a substantial amount of text to the subject himself." --Saqib (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Often extensive biographical information isn't available except from primary sources. Secondary sources, which are required for notability, will most often be about the subject's works and career, and if the coverage is extensive and/or in-depth, as it is in this case, then that is sufficient. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 16:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Believe he obtained enough secondary coverage to meet WP:GNC. Coverage in The Express Tribune and Forbes meets current guidelines.ShoesssS ^Talk 19:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We now have arguments repeated on the basis of the same, refuted justification ad nauseam. Can we have this AfD closed down, one way or another? It's been up awhile. -The Gnome (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like your own arguments have been refuted. There is no policy that requires significant coverage to be biographical coverage, and I have explained why, above. If I were closing this, it would be 'no consensus'. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I agree that if this AfD were to be closed down now, it'd be on a decision of "no consensus." In the rest of your arguments I find little merit, sorry to say.

Source forensics:

That BBC report: Only mentions subject in passing as part of group of hackers who'd warned Google. Another hacker is actually talked about more prominently.

The WSJ report is similar to BBC's.

The Black Hat Asia conference: Simply a list of presenters in a hackers' presentation. I can suggest far, far more "notable" persons if we are to accept as notability evidence a conference brochure.

The two Tribune articles, in 2012 and 2015: Although "Baloch" is a common name in Pakistan (see Balochistan), there is no disclaimer about the reporter Farooq Baloch not having any relation to Rafay Baloch. Different customs maybe, but I'm a stickler on mine. And his "reports" I find to be of highly promotional nature. Maybe that's just me, but my views are at least also the AfD nominator's. Second, the second story is all about a blog that lauds the subject's work, written up by a company whose corporate interest is boosted, plainly speaking, when mobile-phone users are worried about security.

I also note how the 2015 article charmingly reveals that Rafay has "hardly got any attention from national news channels [in Pakistan]." Essentially, the reporter himself, the one who pushes the story, disputes WP:GNG.

The only report worth its salt is the 2014 post by Thomas Fox-Brewster on his Forbes hosted blog. That's one text online focusing on Rafay Baloch's work; hardly a preponderance of WP:GNG evidence.

All in all, a hacker becomes notable for one achievement/event and already merits an article?! Well, as I already wrote, WP:TOOSOON carries the day, in my view, though not the view of the majority. The marketing consultant who created and pushes this article knows it was deleted in 2015 and again in 2016, but still tries on. This time he may well succeed. -The Gnome (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Fails WP:NPOV/WP:NPROMO. It isn't obvious to me that the sources on the subject are neutral or in-depth enough to easilly deal with these issues. I would consider changing my !vote if these policy issues were dealt with using better sources, but a quick look doesn't find any sources that are obviously better. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:57, 29 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. Enigma^msg 19:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Dalle[edit]

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

Delete Run-of-the-mill financier, zero indications of notability. Notability isn't inherited and therefore the companies they invested in do not confer notability on them. Wikipedia is not a directory or yellow pages. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails WP:BASIC. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:RS do not focus on this subject. He is an ancillary mention in the sources.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet either general notability or notability for businesspeople. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:31, 29 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 20:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saul Klein[edit]

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

Delete Run-of-the-mill financier, zero indications of notability. Notability isn't inherited and therefore the companies they invested in do not confer notability on them. Wikipedia is not a directory or yellow pages. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails WP:BASIC. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable bsinessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 26 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 20:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hjalmar Winbladh[edit]

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

Delete No indications of notability. Run-of-the-mill businessman and venture capital financier. Notability isn't inherited and therefore the companies invested in or involved in do not confer notability. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Fails WP:BASIC. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. Not independently notable of EQT Ventures which does not appear to be notable itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 28 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. Enigma^msg 19:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HappyFresh[edit]

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

Delete Zero indications of notability. A run-of-the-mill company. Article created by the same author that created the article for Cherry Ventures, one of the VC companies that invested in this one. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Fails WP:SPIP. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 16:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - needs to even try for WP:RS to even to get to scratch - no effort made so far JarrahTree 05:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. Being part of a promo walled garden also suggests COI / UPE. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:30, 27 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. Enigma^msg 19:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Ventures[edit]

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

Delete Run-of-the-mill venture capital company. Notability isn't inherited and therefore the companies they invested in do not confer notability on the investment firm. Wikipedia is not a directory or yellow pages. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Barbara ✐ ✉ 01:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NCORP & significant RS coverage not found. "Run-of-the-mill venture capital company" sums it up well. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Venture capital companies are unlikely to receive coverage outside of brief mentions and announcements associated with their investments. Since that doesn't satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, there are not many, including this one, that would meet notability guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:13, 29 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. Enigma^msg 19:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Augusta Precious Metals[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. No independent sources to speak of. Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill business. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or Yellow Pages. Fails WP:SPIP. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable business, has a promotional tone. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Numerically, opinions are divided, but in terms of strength of argument, I think the "keep" side has the stronger position. That's because the "delete" side argues with POV concerns, but doesn't address why this cannot be alleviated by editing, whereas the "keep" side puts forward the number of reliable sources covering this topic, which the "delete" side doesn't really contest. Still, given the divided headcount, I don't think we're close enough to a consensus to keep. Discussions about a possible merger can continue. Sandstein 20:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Political views of American academics[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

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

An WP:essay style article written with a clear political purpose, and that is based primarily or only on sources with a clear slant. Recently renamed from Liberal bias in academia, but the content is problematic enough that the new title does nothing to improve the situation. Carl Fredrik^talk 16:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well sourced, has received continued coverage since the 50's, and easily meets WP:GNG. If you think there are POV issues, you are welcome to improve the article. Otherwise that is not a reason for deletion. PackMecEng (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Carl Fredrik^talk 16:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CFCF: I certainly am. Unless you are arguing it is a content fork, which it does not appear to be, it does not meet any WP:DEL-REASON. PackMecEng (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of response is that? I would warn you against WP:BLUDGEONING voters during this discussion with comments that contain no value like that. --Netoholic @ 17:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CFCF: Given the discussion below, do you have anything else to add to your nomination? I for one would certainly appreciate your input. PackMecEng (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's clear that, despite the title change, the subject is one that's notable only for the conspiracy theories and fake news spun around it by folks of a certain partisan persuasion. We do not have articles on the "political views" of medical doctors, firefighters, or other professionals. Moreover, in their capacity as academics these people are conducting research that is dedicated to neutral principles of investigation, documentation, and publishing. The current title, and certainly the article content, continue to insinuate that academics' personal opinions somehow taint their work and corrupt their institutions and students. This article is never likely to rid itself of these fatal NPOV problems. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The purpose of the article is to push a POV, as evidenced by the earlier title and the content. Numerous of the included studies say nothing about political views, instead only talking to party affiliation with the clear intent to suggest political views not in evidence. It leads off with a 1955 study. How does party affiliation in 1955 tell us anything about political views as parties were coalitions of citizens with opposing views? There is no evidence that the political views of academics has affected students. So, why would the political views of academics merit any more importance than the views of beekeepers or exotic dancers? O3000 (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep spurious nomination. This is a subset of academic bias documented there and in several book articles we already cover. The Find Sources book links above easily show this issue has wide coverage and a significant number of sources to draw from. --Netoholic @ 17:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, the article talk page has already rejected the POV that this article is about bias. SPECIFICO talk 18:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that is such a "matter of fact" you won't mind linking to something conclusive to support your assertion then. Without that, you should be careful what you say is a "matter of fact". -- Netoholic @ 20:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed move to the POV title was rejected by an overwhelming consensus. Fact! SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No link provided. Hitchens' razor applies. Keep your WP:ASPERSIONS somewhere else. -- Netoholic @ 20:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (For editors who are new to the AfD process, the preferred terminology is "keep" or "delete", not "support" or "oppose".) There is no question that the page was created as a POV violation. But this is a WP:UGLY situation: the fact that it has been written in a POV manner does not mean that it cannot be written in an NPOV manner. (Note: I am not calling anything "ugly": that's a shortcut link.) The political views of university professors are an encyclopedic topic, and there has been more than enough written about it to establish notability. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is currently going through a period of editors using the editing process to proxy war over the current divisions in US politics. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As I have been further examining the page, it is becoming increasingly clear to me that there really is not reliable sourcing for there being that many more "liberal" than "conservative" professors. Much of the sourcing that argues for a big difference is turning out to be bogus. So there is no way that a "liberal bias" theme is going to hold up. I admit that this is somewhat diminishing my desire to keep the page. However, I'm still a "keep", because the political views of academics remain an encyclopedic and notable topic. But the page should become a summary of the research on the topic, rather than something that promotes the "liberal bias" trope. In fact, I think it is of value to our readers to provide accurate and unbiased facts about the topic, contra the political talking points that are widespread elsewhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is arguably even a Speedy Keep per criterion 3.

WP:Essay has literally nothing to do with this article.
The nom provides no rationale for why it should be deleted in accordance with WP:DEL#REASON.
The article addresses a specific and eminently notable controversy.
The article is well-sourced, and it would remain well-sourced even if each controversial source were to be removed.
The article subject does not break WP:NPOV by its very nature, and can be covered in a neutral way.
The nominator does not appear to have attempted any of WP:ATD before nominating it, despite ample content worth saving.
Even if the article discussed a "conspiracy theory," it would pass WP:NFRINGE due to the sheer volume of independent sources.

If someone has an actual PAG-based reason that this article should be deleted, I'm all ears. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Objective3000 and NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Academic bias - These articles cover nearly identical topics. Academic bias is written in proper encyclopedic style and would benefit from expansion by adding any salvageable content from political views. –dlthewave ☎ 02:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I have left a pointer to this discussion at Talk:Academic bias, as I think should be a required step whenever anyone proposes a merge at an AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NPOV. SportingFlyer talk 05:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG requirements. It's a perennial topic of interest in both academic and non-academic circles and covered widely in the press with in depth coverage over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:21DC:54EE:B15C:A1D1 (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: hard to improve upon AlexEng's points.

Nominator has failed in their due diligence vis-a-vis WP:BEFORE
Stated reason for deletion WP:ESSAY is has no relevance here. NONE. And it is not listed at WP:DEL-REASON.
Editors who are claiming NPOV as a deletion rationale should familiarize themselves with our polices. NPOV is not a reason for deletion per WP:DEL-REASON.
Lastly deletion of large chunks of sourced content goes against the purpose of why we are here: to build an encyclopedia. WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. – Lionel^(talk) 12:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:ESSAY isn't the applicable provision: WP:NOTESSAY is. SportingFlyer talk 20:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Which point in WP:NOTESSAY applies to the article? AlexEng^(TALK) 21:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm guessing that it might perhaps be that the page expresses editor opinions. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear presentation of POV. No encyclopedic purpose, let alone value.T v x1 14:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not sure why Americans are scared of the fact the more educated you are the more liberal you lean. academic topic that comes up all the time in the debate over education.--Moxy (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What debate over education are you referring to? I thought it was pretty much considered a good thing, education. SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The one in the article.....what you talking about.--Moxy (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I only see "debate" mentioned a single time in the article in our paraphrase of a single "study" that is behind a paywall. I was asking you about "all the time". That's unsubstantiated and I don't know what it refers to, but we can continue on article talk if you wish. SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean as a whole.....the debate of where highly educated professors lie on the political Spectrum as outlined here. Deletion of an academically studied topic is a bit odd.-Moxy (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

::::::Moxy: If you have a source that supports your thesis that indoctrination of American students by liberal professors is increasingly effective as they move through the educational system, please provide it so that it can be added to the article. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is that it's normal for academics to be left-leaning. It's what happens to many in University as they discover analytical and critical thinking. Kibeom Lee; Michael C. Ashton (2013). The H Factor of Personality: Why Some People are Manipulative, Self-Entitled, Materialistic, and Exploitive—And Why It Matters for Everyone. Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press. pp. 107–. ISBN 978-1-55458-864-0..--Moxy (talk) 02:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

::::::::Rather than getting in a drawn-out back and forth and exploring correlation and causation, I'd like to drop one of my favorite quotations here (or at least one of my favorite variations): "If a person is not a liberal when he is twenty, he has no heart; if he is not a conservative when he is forty, he has no head." Attributing the liberalism of young people and wine-sipping academics to the discovery of "analytical and critical thinking" is a mindbogglingly parochial and pretentious perspective, which completely ignores the possibility that perhaps liberal professors imparting their worldview on receptive and uninformed children (for years) inevitably has an effect on their political leanings. Liberalism isn't exactly renowned for leaning on data and objective analysis rather than raw emotion (see gun control, illegal immigration, black-on-black crime, etc.). Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please leave your personal biases out of this. WP:NOTFORUM O3000 (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

::::::::::The discussion is on topic and probably concluded. Please stop adding your own thoughts after every comment I make. There are plenty of other articles for you to edit. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time today you have suggested I stop editing articles that you edit. This must stop. O3000 (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)![reply]

* Keep Obviously. Well-sourced and lots of research and studies performed on this subject. Notable and verifiable. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC) Editor blocked as sock. O3000 (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve to ensure NPOV. Professors have been investigated for their political and social beliefs since at least 1917. It's important to document this history. See the entry on W.E.B. DuBois in Stalking Sociologists: J. Edgar Hoover's FBI Surveillance of American Sociology, by Mike Forrest Keen.AnaSoc (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. – Lionel^(talk) 11:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Academic bias. Some of the statistics (perhaps those of academics self-identifying their political ideologies) should find a place in the discussion there, but I'm hard-pressed to believe that what could work a subsection on that article deserves a lengthy, and somewhat repetitive, offshoot.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Having seen some interest in merging the page to Academic bias, I think it may be useful for me to point out that editors are discussing at the article talk page the idea of expanding the article to include the history of J. Edgar Hoover, Joe McCarthy, and others to misuse the US government to suppress political views in academia in the US. That's a specifically US topic, and it really has nothing to do with professorial bias. There is a big difference between political views and their history, taken as a whole, versus the much more narrow (and POV) concept of bias. It's very unfortunate that the page being discussed here was originally started as a POV piece about so-called "bias", but the page was renamed and editors need to consider the scope that it will have if it is kept. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The history of McCarthyism in academia is an interesting topic, but fundamentally it is neither about the views nor the biases of the academics affected by it. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - It certainly has nothing to do with biases, but the page needs to be rewritten to be about political views, whether or not they result in biases. And McCarthy directly targeted people based upon what he considered to be their political views. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - "What he considered to be their views" is a very different thing than what their views might have been. And I am not convinced that he carefully analyzed the views of his political opponents, rather than first identifying them as opponents and then on that basis attributing unpopular views to them. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree. He obviously is not a reliable source. But, just as there is the present-day canard that academics are hostile to conservatives and Republicans, there was that earlier canard that they were Communists. Although of course the page should cover what the range of political views actually are, it is also encyclopedic to cover how perceptions of those views have been used and misused for political purposes. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not independently notable of Academic bias. The article can be best described as covering a conspiracy theory which can be better done in the context of the overall article. No need to preserve the article history, so a "delete" is a better option in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep whatever the flaws of the article as it stands, it covers a distinct and notable topic on which a substantial amount of research has been published. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to academic bias, no merge. To me the telling sentence in the article, from the middle of a huge wall of text, is "Many of these researchers, according to Gross, have made "a number of poor methodological choices, as well as leaps of logic, because of their strong political commitments."" That the article then goes on to quote in detail piles of the same research, with no attempt at digesting it or summarizing it, and no attempt to distinguish Wikipedia's point of view from the mostly-politically-motivated points of view of the critics, makes it not worth saving as a WP:POVFORK from the parent bias article. That academic bias is a notable topic is indisputable. That a specifically America-focused view on academic bias is notable as a subtopic of this topic also seems likely enough (although I question whether that's not what we already have in the parent article). But I can't make the jump from that truth to the salvageability of any content from the article as we have it now. And if it is to be an article about the political biases (not "views") of American academics, then the title is wrong. Or, if it is to be an article about the political views of American academics, then the current content is almost entirely off-topic, because there is nothing in the article that discusses the ways in which academic viewpoints on politics might be differentiated from the standard left-right spectrum that characterizes everyone else's viewpoints on politics. (Disclaimer: I am an academic, with viewpoints on politics that I try to keep out of my Wikipedia editing. But to try is not always to succeed.) —David Eppstein (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per K.e.coffmann and David Eppstein. XOR'easter (talk) 16:17, 29 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 20:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Karlstrom[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:MUSIC. Kelly ^hi! 16:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Résumé-style biography of a person who has no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no reliable source references to carry him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 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. Enigma^msg 19:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geri Karlstrom[edit]

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

No evidence this person meets notability criteria of WP:MUSIC. Kelly ^hi! 16:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Résumé-style biography of a person who has no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no reliable source references to carry her over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 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. Enigma^msg 19:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

InsuranceQuotes[edit]

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

Delete Purely promotional page/advertisement for a non-notable website that's a third-party sales portal to actual insurance companies - one of hundreds on the web. The author was a single-purpose account that created this article and disappeared. The impressive-looking reference list is part unreliable sources, and part sources that mention the website once, usually because there's a quote from "Senior Analyst Laura Adams", and none of them seem to actually support the sentences that are in the article itself. There's no in-depth coverage of this company/website anywhere that I can find. Amsgearing (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the cited sources meet the in-depth coverage requirement, and most of what else I could find (which is admittedly difficult, given the name) related to surveys the firm commissioned, not their core business practice. MarginalCost (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTPROMOTION Acnetj (talk) 07:54, 23 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 20:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HighBar Partners[edit]

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

Delete Run-of-the-mill venture capital company. Notability isn't inherited and therefore the companies they invested in do not confer notability on the investment firm. Wikipedia is not a directory or yellow pages. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to just be an advertisement. I went through the list of references and among the ones that aren't dead (which is several), I found exactly one mention of the Highbar name, and it was just that, a mention. No in-depth coverage anywhere. Almost all of the references don't even mention the company so any editor would be well within their rights to delete most of the page. Article deletion seems to be the best option. Amsgearing (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:45, 22 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 20:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Crop Capital[edit]

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

Delete Run-of-the-mill venture capital company. Notability isn't inherited and therefore the companies they invested in do not confer notability on the investment firm. Wikipedia is not a directory or yellow pages. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP & significant RS coverage not found. "Run-of-the-mill venture capital company" sums it up pretty well. Just a promo / catalogue entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus here is that the article is notable. Article can be moved at editorial discretion. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictitious Academy Award winners and nominees[edit]

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

No more than a minor aspect of the Hollywood blacklist. It is not notable, as no sources have been provided in the ten years since the last AfD, even though the "keep" voters were asserting notability. I found this LA Times article and a few insignificant book mentions about the pseudonyms of blacklisted people. wumbolo ^^^ 15:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It looks like the arguments of notability in the prior AfD ran afoul of WP:NOTINHERITED and asserted the existence of sources without proof. Almost all ghits under this title appear to be mirrors and forks of this article, with no reliable sources in existence. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is part of Wikipedia's comprehensive coverage of the Academy Awards, as well as a significant aspect about the history of the blacklist and of the use of alias credits in film. In addition to the noted 2016 LA Times article, other coverage of the topic includes this 2001 LA Times article (reprinted in the Chicago Tribune) [6], this 2007 Boston Herald article about "The Academy's phantom victors" [7], and a discussion in this university press book [8]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is valid encyclopedic information and I don't think it'd all fit in the already quite long article for Hollywood blacklist, and some entries weren't using fake names for that purpose so wouldn't all fit there anyway. Reliable sources do cover these things. Dream Focus 17:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename. I can't think of a suitable alternative name right now, but calling this a list of "fictitious" Academy Award winners is inappropriate, because many of these were real people. Reyk _YO! 07:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to List of pseudonymous Academy Award winners and nominees. As noted by Reyk above, these are real winners who didn't win under their own name. Vadder (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Vadder. Pburka (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Vadder and Pburka._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:39, 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. Enigma^msg 19:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hussain Andaryas[edit]

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

Some decent coverage, please........ ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. We should not flippantly say "his was probably the first Persian-language website ever" without any source. Nothing indicates impact or secondary coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Shxahxh (talk) 18:38, 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 merge to LGBT rights in Texas. Sandstein 20:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transgender Education Network of Texas[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:ORG. They get several passing mentions in WP:Reliable sources online, such as comments from their members in articles on proposed legislation, but there's no substantial coverage of them as a group. A few of their members were in the news yesterday about an incident of alleged discrimination, but again the news was about the incident, and their membership of the group is only mentioned in passing. I can't see sufficient notability enough for a separate article on them outside of of LGBT rights in Texas or LGBT culture in Austin, Texas. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with LGBT rights in Texas. Coverage so far seems too trivial to justify a full article, but the org is important in the grand scheme of transgender rights in Texas. I'd support remaking the article in the future if better sources become available. Nanophosis (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to LGBT rights in Texas as a reasonable WP:ATD-M. Suggested merge target article only has a link about this organization in its external links section; merging will improve coverage of the overall topic there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 23 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 20:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lalit Agarwal[edit]

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

Hmm.....How's he notable? Nothing apart from trivial mentions, whilst providing news-bytes or that in PR stuff. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's only mentioned trivially while spieling PR-yada yada for the company he is involved with. Subject is not indepently notable. Cesdeva ^(talk) 17:21, 23 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 20:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Agrawal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm unable to find any decent coverage about the subject in reliable sources with known editorial integrity and repute.Vanity-UPE-Spam. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a Tedex speaker is not in and of itself a sign of notability and we have nothing else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT. The claim too "fame" is not even remotely close to meeting general notability standards. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources doesn't look notableAccesscrawl (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a news paper advertisement must be delete Heshiv (talk) 10:37, 28 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 20:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nabeel Abbas (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Borderline G11 stuff.Anyways, nothing other than trivial mentions in some half-spammy news reports.Fails subject notability guidelines by a mile or so....... ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – TheGridExe (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarasota Military Academy[edit]

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

The article was PROD in 2007 and recreated in 2014 while still not addressing WP:GNG concerns. I'm unable to speedy delete this article (created by banned user at the time) as it's been improved since its recreation in 2014. – TheGridExe (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also wouldn't be against a redirect to Sarasota County, Florida#Education. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a public high school with more than 1000 students[9][10]. Regular news and sports coverage is apparent in basic searches, with examples such as [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. The school is notable under Wikipedia's currently prevailing standards applicable to such schools. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Arxiloxos: Is there a specific guideline for schools? I keep on finding the older discussions but nothing explicitly stated. Also, would the matter of it being a charter school change things? I see that they operate separately from the county's School Board but there's still involvement with the county. – TheGridExe (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited secondary school with plenty of coverage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There has been some nonsense claiming that a couple closers of a bad RFC are allowed to gag all others from mentioning wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Doncram (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Accredited secondary school with plenty of coverage. Per long-standing precedent as documented at OUTCOMES. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the articles posted by Arxiloxos can be used towards significant coverage, namely the ones about expanding the campus, changing leadership, so there is potential beyond a single sentence about the school. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to withdraw my nomination per above. Thank you for the input, everyone. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Blaauboschkraal stone ruins. Content may be merged from history selectively. Sandstein 20:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam's Calendar[edit]

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

WP:FRINGE theory promotion sourced almost entirely to one person's pesudoarcheological writings. The only independent source is a two-paragraph Atlas Obscura listing which is not WP:SIGCOV. No evidence in WP:BEFORE of passing WP:GNG or any applicable SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. No RS and no obvious chance of any. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC) As presented here this is a fringe idea, but should be a[reply]
redirect to Blaauboschkraal stone ruins. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per proposal. The site itself isn't notable if not for the fringe theory. Nanophosis (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An NPOV article could be written on stone-walled ruins in the Mpumalanga escarpment. See, e.g. [20], [21], [22], but this current speculation about one does not seem to me to be the basis for one as I am finding no reliable source material about it specifically. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Blaauboschkraal stone ruins appears to be the stub of a provincial heritage site (South Africa) nearby. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Redirect to that article on the strength of this Amazon book reviewer's reasoning: [23] "So if you've been searching for "Adam's Calendar" or "Enki's Calendar" or "Inzalo y’Langa", what you're actually looking at is the Blaauboschkraal stone ruins, a minor ruin from the Bokoni civilization of the 15-18th century." 24.151.50.175 (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, maybe a brief mention in another article, but not standalone.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~ Merge to Blaauboschkraal stone ruins. Possibly rename. The very old stone structure in Mpumalanga is significant - very significant. The "Adam's Calendar" moniker is perhaps questionable, though widely used (also used - stone circle(s) in Mpumalanga, or African Stonehenge). Relevant SNGs are WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GEOLAND (as an abandoned human settlement/building of some sort). Passes GNG. Book by Wits University Press - Forgotten World: The Stone Walled Settlements of the Mpumalanga Escarpment. Other coverage - [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]. There is also a museum - [33]. There are also quite a few hits of relevant articles in google scholar Mpumalanga "stone circles".Icewhiz (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Agree with redirect target suggested above. I do think we should mention the fringe theory and museum, briefly, there.Icewhiz (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty is mentioning fringe ideas in a stub article without violating WP:UNDUE and/or WP:PROFRINGE. As for the "museum", it is apparently promotional: "Consisting of a small country bistro, bar, bookshop AND museum, Michael aims to turn Stone Circle Bistro into a place where new-age thinkers meet and share ideas, and host regular talks and events with fascinating guest speakers." [34]. All that said, it might be a good idea to list the alternative names "(also referred to as Adam's Calendar, Enki's Calendar and Inzalo y’Langa)" in the article so that it shows up in Google searches for those names. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blaauboschkraal stone ruins and perhaps add a sentence from the article history or from this AfD. Not independently notable and a separate article is not required. Does not meet WP:FRINGE either. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blaauboschkraal stone ruins and as suggested, add a sentence from article if need be. Otherwise, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 17:04, 28 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 Speedy Keep (withdrawn by nominator). -- Nyttend (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mottainai Grandma[edit]

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

Article was originally created to make a point and was done so clumsily (it originally called the short picture book a "bestselling novel", referred to the word mottainai as a "concept" (which the creator insisted was different from a common word, with the opposite meaning of the common word), etc., and included closely paraphrased text. The book is not noteworthy in itself (the linked Japanese article is about the character, who in Japan has appeared in more than a dozen books) and because of the dearth of sources saying a whole lot about it our article is set to remain a microstub indefinitely. A merge/redirect to Mottainai, or a hypothetical article on either the author or the character would be acceptable, but I can't see this article surviving as it is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Okay, it's clear this isn't going anywhere. Ironic that I should have to strike my OP comment when it seems like no one actually read it, as they have been arguing against an OP comment I didn't make ("This page should be deleted and nothing put in its place"). Once again, the false "keep/delete" dichotomy has screwed things up, and will no doubt be used in the near future as a pretext for compromising the credibility of the encyclopedia by reinstating content that was already removed from the other article of which this is a POVFORK. I'm withdrawing before more people get roped into inadvertently !voting for that outcome. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was not made to make a point, as I pointed out previously. I have created articles for books previously that I saw mention of that didn't have articles yet. It meets the general notability guidelines, so should be kept. Note you forgot to inform the creator of the article of this deletion discussion on my talk page. Dream Focus 16:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: That the article was not created to make a point is not really an argument in favour of keeping. I mentioned it above because that the article was created to make a point (an irrefutable claim, it would seem) explains why the article as it exists is so abysmal, and why its author (you) didn't check before creating it that it could one day be made less abysmal. I am not obliged to inform you of the article coming to AFD, and even if you didn't have the page watchlisted you should have seen it coming because I PRODded it a few days back and did notify you then. Basically what I am saying is that half of your comment seems to be more about defending your (frankly atrocious) behaviour in the discussion that led to the article's creation and getting jabs in at me than in defending the topic's viability as a standalone article. The fact is that three months after it being pointed out to you that your original article was one of the most abysmal pieces ever published by a long-term Wikipedian you have made no attempt to improve it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the only part of your comment that looks like a valid AFD argument references GNG, but GNG requires sufficient sources to write an article on the topic that is not a microstub, not (as you seem to think) some arbitrary number of sources that mention the topic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—the article was definitely created out of bad faith and was badly done, but that has nothing to do with the legitimacy of its exitence. The article passes WP:GNG, though it needs more work (like on the fact that it's a series). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey: But wouldn't the fact that it's a series make it a different topic? The first book is so short, and sources discussing it so bare, that what's already in the article is all that could likely be written about it. As I said, I'd be cool with it being merged into a hypothetical article (read: moved) on the author or the character, or I guess the series. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(a) the series is called Mottainai Bāsan (one of the books is the bāsan reprimanding children for being mottainai with their food) (b) the first book has gotten almost all the coverage.

The article could be refocused, expanded, rewritten—but not moved. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As mentioned above it passes WP:GNG. Plus the article was modified and notable references were added. Sindanna (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)— Sindanna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Sindanna: Please refrain from referring to your own edits in that manner (it would be better if you said "I modified ...", "I added ..."). Anyway, I have reverted your edits as containing similar close paraphrasing to what was previously rev-delled. Apart from the close paraphrasing issue, inline attribution would be required when talking about such questionably specific interpretations of what is in reality a very short, simple picture book. If teaching children about hygiene and environmental awareness was JICA's goal in releasing the book in India, then we should say that, but unfortunately the press-release-like source you cited does not specify that so we can't, and we definitely shouldn't be citing JICA's 2018 goal in releasing the book on the Indian market as though it was Shinju's original intent in writing the book more than a decade earlier, or was even something that was explicitly a part of the book itself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also: brand new editors really shouldn't be !voting in AFDs, and should disclose that by !voting in one they are not involved in they are essentially "returning the favour" to another editor who !voted to "rescue" an article they were involved in.[35] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus. I didn't even notice this source: referring to a children's picture book as a "parenting book" with "a plethora of topics that help parents make sure their children learn ‘good habits’ at young age" (wording that, if not accompanied by an image that explicitly contradicted it, would imply the book was a parenting guide) is extremely dubious, and any Wikipedia editor who takes such a source at face value should probably be cautioned about being more careful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule against newer editors participating in AFDS. Sindanna managed to find some more reliable sources giving significant coverage to this book. The Asian Age [36], ABC Online [37], and I'm not sure about Business Wire India [38]. Is that one just a press release, or do they rewrite the information themselves? But the other two certainly add to the fact it obviously passes WP:GNG. Dream Focus 15:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DF, you've participated in a lot of AFDs before, so I expect you know that GNG is about having enough sources to build an article, and it doesn't matter whether said sources are technically "independent" or not. Additionally, bullshit fringe sources about "ancient Chinese secrets" like that ABC Online source simply cannot be used for anything, GNG or no. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, given the close parallels in content and even wording with our article of that time (mottainai also has ties with Shinto animism, the idea that all objects have a spirit — or kami is attributed to "Yuko Kawanishi, a sociologist at Tokyo Gakugei University", but the author clearly didn't interview Kawanishi himself as his wording is almost identical to ours), and the fact that it explicitly admits to using images from Wikimedia Commons (actually almost certainly English Wikipedia), I wouldn't be surprised if this was a case of WP:CITOGENESIS, and hence WP:CIRCULAR. Essentially, this comes across as your attempting to use your Mottainai Grandma article as a WP:POVFORK to reintroduce content that consensus already removed from the Mottainai artice. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never tried to keep or reintroduce any Shinto animism into that article, so as usual, your delusional conspiracy theories make absolutely no sense a tall. I have a long history of creating articles for books I found coverage of, this had nothing to do with that other article. Dream Focus 01:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can Ctrl+F Talk:Mottainai (and your forum-shopped RSN thread, etc.) for "concept" and see you arguing endlessly about preserving the orientalist nonsense that constituted the core of that article. You even fought to cite that ABC article specifically, and now you are doing the exact same thing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about "Shinto", only that multiple sources called it a concept. Others argued that point. Dream Focus 02:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus: don't stir this pot again. We've established that your creating the article was extremely WP:POINTy and done in bad faith. The article can still be salvaged despite that. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You and one other claiming something does not establish it. While looking for something else, I found a book that was mentioned in reliable sources, so I made an article for it, simple as that. I have done this many times over the years with other books, comic books, and any other random thing I come across. [39] I read an article about a virus or bacteria, I make articles for it. Any random thing, just what I do. So kindly stop with your ridiculous accusation. There was nothing that could be gained by making this article. Dream Focus 05:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus—"one other"? Who? You mean Imaginatorium, Nishidani, Hijiri, or ... ? Come on, drop the stick already. You've made a big enough mess. You stepped into an area you didn't understand, which is fine. What's not fine is digging in your heels and interfering when others came to clean up your mess. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall any but two of you claiming this article was pointy. I still have no idea what point you think was being made though. And how exactly am I interfering with others editing this article? I don't see how me creating a perfectly valid stub article is a "big enough mess". You seem to be having some imaginary battle in your head. Dream Focus 13:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you're digging in. No surprise. Don't count on any assumptions of good faith from here on. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DF, you are missing the point. I gave that Shinto quote as evidence that the source you want to cite was dependent on Wikipedia, or more specifically on Wikipedia content that consensus had already decided to excise. I never said anything about you adding stuff about Shinto to this article. Your misinterpreting this twice in a row despite my having been clear enough the first time indicates that you are deliberately playing dumb in order to game the system. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly not being clear with your vague random nonsense. You could've just said you don't believe one source is valid, and it was once upon a time used in this other article also for something totally unrelated. Your conspiracy theory that somehow referencing it in this article would somehow slip it over there for something totally unrelated that I never once commented on or tried to add, is just total nonsense. Dream Focus 13:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just for the record, since the nom made a claim about the linked Japanese article, here is a translation of the first section.

Overview

About the character
Mottainai Grandma is a character who, when a child does something wasteful, appears out of somewhere saying "Mottainaaai!", and proceeds to show how doing things the clever old way can prevent waste.
About the book
Mottanai Grandma is a best-selling picture book by Mariko Shinju. It was published in 2004 by Kodansha and has sold more than 700,000 copies. The character is popular and has appeared in various newspapers and magazines, including the Asahi Elementary School Newspaper, the Mainichi daily newspaper, children's magazines (Otomodachi, Genki), and the Environmental Ministry's Children's Eco-club News.

The book has been published in a bilingual English/Japanese version and has been translated into Korean, Chinese (China and Taiwan), and Thai.

The article goes on to list other books in the series, along with CDs and a DVD. It's something of a franchise.

About "to make a point", someone should note that the nom is a party to a content dispute at the main article. At issue is whether the term "mottainai" has a depth of meaning not present in similar words from other languages, as claimed by the late environmental minister from Kenya, and if so whether that depth of meaning is rooted in Japanese religion. The nom has taken the other side, for example by deleting the entire etymology section, which seems to me like a pretty highhanded way to say that you don't think the word's history is important.

Obviously these issues can't be settled here. And unfortunately right now I'm not in a position to use bandwidth on a topic like this. But I'm confident that Japanese sources exist for all of the statements quoted above. Nor do I see any reason why the article can't be about the book, the character, and the entire series. Hence I'm !voting keep.– Margin1522 (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Margin1522: I'm genuinely surprised to see you here at all, let alone wretching up the old "content dispute" on the main article -- I thought you stormed away from that in a huff after being threatened with a block for repeated, unapologetic plagiarism. The simple fact is that it's extremely difficult to write any of the stuff you, and DF, and now Sindanna have been adding in your own words, either because it's garbage and you know it, and don't want to "own" it with an accurate paraphrase, or because you don't know it and so are unable to accurately paraphrase.

As for the content of the ja.wiki article: As is quite often the case, the ja.wiki article is essentially unsourced, and so is useless, but per my OP comment and my reply to CT above, arguing that the page should be retitled and refocused to look more like the Japanese article isn't actually a "keep" argument but a "merge" or "rename" argument.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for a pretty highhanded way to say that you don't think the word's history is important -- that's bogus, and you know it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Margin1522: Your "keep" rationale is awfully WP:POINTy. Should we point out that you also took sides in the content dispute?

Also keep in mind that the J-article is entirely uncited. As I've pointed out, there are RSes out there, but we should restrict this article to what the RSes say and ignore the uncited J-article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:01, 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. Enigma^msg 20:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zulfadli[edit]

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

Author dePROD without any reason, but still fail WP:NFOOTBALL Hhkohh (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:30, 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. Enigma^msg 20:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taufik Aqsar[edit]

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

Author dePROD without any reason, but still fail WP:NFOOTBALL Hhkohh (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails NFOOTY and GNG[edit]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:21, 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 speedily deleted per G11-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cryonics Institute[edit]

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

Nominated for CSD on promotional grounds, but this article's been here for years and its possible that there is some notability in it somewhere in between the finely oiled promotional BS. Listing here for community input on the matter TomStar81 (Talk) 10:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. and allow rewriting. Google News shows there are enough sources to write an article; it will not be easy, as all available ones seem essentially based on their press releases. . (The best one in the current article, USA TODAY, is also essentially a press release). I considered this and still consider this a valid G11, because the G11 criterion is " would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic". See also the associated article, Immortalist Society. DGG ( talk ) 13:20, 22 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Hill[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable ice hockey player who fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. The sources on the page are either not independent or are routine coverage. Should actually be deleted as G4 as it contains pretty much identical information with nothing new to indicate notability, however, the tag was removed by someone. DJSasso (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnpacklambert: Hi, Wikipedia does not have any inclusion criteria specifically for hockey players. NSPORTS is intended to indicate whether or not sources can be found for an athlete -- it does not serve its main purpose if sources are already found, as is the case with this article as they are all listed at the bottom. --Habst (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Habst: Actually, WP:NHOCKEY is for all ice hockey players including women, although the only consistency for coverage in NHOCKEY that women are likely to meet is #6, playing in the top level of the IIHF World Championship (or WP:NOLYMPICS). However, this does not mean that all women who do not meet NHOCKEY are not notable as any NSPORTS or NPEOPLE can still meet GNG. And as GNG is the nomination reason, lets keep the discussion there. Yosemiter (talk)
Keep. I removed the tag because I read the relevant Wikipedia policies and thought that it did not qualify for speedy deletion via that criteria. Before I removed the tag, I wrote why I thought it didn't qualify for deletion at Talk:Carly_Hill#Contested deletion. The athlete is a two-time gold medalist at a global senior championship. There are at least twelve references from ten different independent secondary sources demonstrating non-routine coverage of the subject. That demonstrates substantial depth of coverage that far surpasses the WP:BASIC guidelines in my opinion, which overrules NSPORTS. The purpose of the NSPORTS guidelines is to supplement GNG and not to replace it (in fact the purpose is not to be authoritative in any sense as it is only an indicator of whether sources can be found), and I think that the athlete meets GNG. Also, I don't think it's very fair to say the tag was removed by "someone" without even mentioning my rationale for removing the tag (which is, again, on the talk page) when you could have pinged me by my username. Habst (talk) 03:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Habst: There are several problematic presumptions made in your statement, so I will do my best to address each one.
  First, it did qualify for speedy as it was a re-creation of a previously deleted article that did not have any additional content added. Basically just a translation of the person's French Wikipedia article, which is what was deleted before. And just because there is an article in a another language's Wikipedia, it does not mean the subject is notable on the English Wikipedia. The different language Wikipedias are considered separate projects with different notability standards, while also generally having less organizational oversight. However, you are within your rights to contest.
  Second, WP:BASIC is the shortened version of WP:GNG (hence why that section has a See also: Wikipedia:General notability guideline at the top). GNG does indeed overrule NSPORTS. The problem lies in your presumption of notability based on achievements that have not been shown to have any inherent notability. Winning any gold medals has no such presumption, especially as it is a team award and not an individual achievement. Also, it was not a "global senior championship" (which would be the top level of the IIHF World Women's Championships), it was just the Canadian Women's Hockey League, prior to the league paying its players (and also prior to having the China-based teams, so even your "global" is incorrect). Her national championships in the CIS are even lower in terms of media coverage.
  Now the GNG sources and your statement: "at least twelve references from ten different independent secondary sources". Please note to meet GNG at least a couple of sources must meet all of the following: significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

1 and 2 are her WP:PRIMARY stats pages (with 2 not intellectually independent).

3 is from a non-independent, non-reliable fan blog. (The site self describes The best and most comprehensive #Habs blog around.")

4, 5 7 is her school newspaper and is not considered independent per WP:NCOLLATH.

6 The first independent secondary news source, however, she is not even mentioned and thus means nothing for her meeting GNG. It is a source to show the team won.

8 Primary source for the CIS (now U Sports), so not secondary.

9 Another independent secondary source. Also she is not even mentioned a single time, again an unusable source for Hill meeting GNG.

10 Cannot tell the independence or reliability of this source. However, it is simply a list and therefore fails the significant depth of coverage qualification for GNG.

11 Primary source for the CIS. Also she is never even mentioned.

So based on the sources used in the article, and a G-News search that only gets 93 hits for the name in hockey, all mentions or blogs, this appears to far and away a person who fails to meet GNG with NO significant depth of coverage. The only exception may be if someone can provide some better French language articles that I missed in my search. Yosemiter (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN hockey player, fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE as contributing towards notability. For my part, I am at a serious loss to figure out how any editor can look at "she won gold medals at two of the World University Games" and claim that such represented a "global senior championship" (let alone one recognized by NHOCKEY), or to have genuinely looked at those sources and claim that they provide significant, reliable, independent coverage to the subject. Ravenswing 19:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. It might be worth considering to salt the article given how quickly it was recreated with the exact same content that got it deleted in the first place. Deadman137 (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SPORTSPERSON, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject fails NHOCKEY, which is the pertinent sports SNG to which SPORTSPERSON directs, the subject meets none of the three elements of ANYBIO, and Yosemiter's already covered the GNG argument. I'd ask you what GNG-qualifying sources you believe to exist for the subject, except that I've asked you the same question in about two dozen AfDs to date, and not once have you responded. Ravenswing 23:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone is willing to look up Canada Games, you'll see WP:ANYBIO clearly met, in addition to WP:SPORTSPERSON and WP:GNG. WP:NHOCKEY excludes most women hockey players - so I tend to ignore it, just like some editors on here. Hmlarson (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Canada Games is the top level amateur youth competition in Canada, but I fail to see how a participation on any amateur team there meets ANYBIO's: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field and the silver medal there is definitely not an award that meets: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor (I have a hard time even finding a list of winners, mush less significant depth of coverage on them).
Also ANYBIO still falls under the provisions of GNG (as stated in the section lead for ANYBIO: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included), so please focus your arguments of the reason it is nominated (which is GNG first and foremost). Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 01:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NHOCKEY ignores most women hockey players because the world does not find women's hockey noteworthy enough to provide it reliable coverage. In like fashion, no modern-day women's baseball leagues are presumptively notable, no women's football leagues are presumptively notable, no women's rugby leagues are presumptively notable ... In any event, no, you don't simply get to ignore pertinent notability criteria that you don't like. This is a consensus-based encyclopedia, and you don't have veto power over its provisions.
(And that being said, if you really do believe that participation in a national amateur competition meets ANYBIO, then frankly, I question your competence to gauge hockey-related articles at all. Ravenswing 06:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We could include women in NHOCKEY, but it would be some form in the last section that could consist of:
For coaches or managers of ice hockey teams, substitute "coached" or "managed" for "played" in the player guidelines.
For women hockey players and personnel that do not meet the above criteria, coverage in women's college and professional teams of individuals has been found to be inconsistent and therefore the player must meet GNG independently.
For participants in defunct leagues who satisfy any of these achievement standards, please see the ice hockey league assessment maintained by the Ice Hockey WikiProject. For leagues still in existence, only those listed above satisfy the specified criteria.
But something tells me you would still not be happy about. Not to mention if I brought that proposal up at WT:NSPORTS, I would get shot down as it is unusual to have an anti-criterion and, as Ravenswing correctly points out, is not used for all the other NSPORTS guidelines that have no mention of women's leagues.Yosemiter (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She doesn't meet the notability criteria for hockey players and I don't believe the coverage is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet NHOCKEY, the sources in the article are either blogs or brief mentions, and I did not find anything on my own that would indicate she meets GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:39, 29 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. Rlendog (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rylan Kaip[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league player who fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:HOCKEY. The only references that could be found for him are either routine coverage or not independent. DJSasso (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN minor-league fourth-liner with ephemeral and unheralded career, fails NHOCKEY, no coverage meeting the GNG beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE as contributing towards notability. Article created by editor long since community banned from new article creation for coming up with many hundreds of these NN articles. Ever so many thanks to User:Bbb23 for wasting our time by removing the speedy notice on this one. Ravenswing 14:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails our very broad inclusion guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found nothing to show that either WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY is met. Papaursa (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG with only routine coverage. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:58, 28 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 withdrawn by nominator to redirect. So Why 10:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow Oceanarium[edit]

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

A WP:ROTM oceanarium, no sources to met WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Hence no sense of notability established Quek157 (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak Russian, so I cannot determine the notability, but a Merge to VDNKh (Russia) where it's already mentioned seems entirely possible per WP:ATD. Regards So Why 10:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy:, the initial page that you declined my CSD get redirected to this and then we are trying to merge this undersourced, highly WP:NOTGUIDE material there??? I am not sure also, is it okay I do a redirect of this page there and then we do selective merging from history rather than histmerge as not any materials on this page to merge, even that infobox is missing from this page. Then this will be a redirect to the main page and the original redirect will be under G8? --Quek157 (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The center of oceanography and marine biology “Moskvarium”: 80 aquariums, 8000 species of sea creatures from all over the world including 500 species of fish, killer whales, three meter sharks, dolphins and Russian sturgeon." is exactly what the main article has, so I don't mind a redirect but not such a highly promotional page. Can I just do a redirect of this page then? (and perhaps close this Afd), but that sentence is just supported by a inline link without any citations, which itself can be challenged as non verifiable. Hope for your inputs. Neither I can speak any Russian too. --Quek157 (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. So Why 10:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. So Why 10:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. So Why 10:30, 22 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charity Marsh[edit]

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

I dislike nominating highly productive academics because I believe WP:NACADEMICS needs an overhaul (possibly at the expense of a few thousand ball players...), but seeing that's what we have to go by - she doesn't seem to qualify. No substantial independent coverage that I could find, no named chair, high honors, etc. Lots of publications, but that's not sufficient in itself. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I get a GS citation h-index of 7, which is not enough to pass WP:Prof#C1: nothing else WP:Too soon yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete there's basically nothing availble in secondary coverage. In the absence of WP:RS, the page is being use as a kind of Linkedin.104.163.139.33 (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Canada Research Chair satisfies Academic(5): "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)." --Theredproject (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. If that's what is meant by "named research chair", that sounds good. But I always thought it referred to things like the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, i.e. a single named chair, rather than one of (in this case) 2000 chairs... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that Tier 1 Canada Research Chairs satisfy WP:PROF#C5, but Tier 2 Canada Research Chairs (which is what Marsh has) do not. The program explicitly distinguishes between Tier 1 as being for "world leaders in their fields" versus Tier 2 as "emerging researchers" with the potential to become leaders. The Tier 2 chairs are typically held by early-career academics (e.g. associate professor, not full), while the intent of #C5 is to recognize academics who are at farther advanced steps than full professors. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct: tier 2 is not a big deal at all. It is also not a named research chair. Here is a long list of advertisements seeking tier 2 researchers. The tier 2 CRC is a "starter" chair for youngish, promising researchers. C5 also says explicitly that "Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments." So she does not qualify there. 104.163.139.33 (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should nominate the related IMP Labs, which has the same problems. I also found a CBC interview with her, for her role as co-owner of a human movement business in Regina Saskatchewan.104.163.139.33 (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks coverage in secondary sources, and the aforementioned issue with a 'Tier 2' Canada Research Chair makes me believe this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. PK T(alk) 13:34, 27 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 20:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shahnaz Vahanvaty[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. Of the three sources (1 & 3 are identical), only the last mentions her - in passing. No indication of substantial coverage, fails WP:NACTOR. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 26 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. Rlendog (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaimie Leonoff[edit]

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

Non-notable ice hockey player who fails to meet WP:GNG. Also fails to meet WP:NSPORTS. DJSasso (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Keep per WP:SPORTSPERSON. Player played in National Women's Hockey League (NWHL), highest league in the United States, and the first pro women's hockey league in North America. Article could use improved referencing, expansion, including more links to season articles and not deletion, per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPORTSPERSON is just the generic description of NSPORTS which is why it links to that page with more detail, as the players claim on notability hails from hockey they fall under the hockey section. So no they don't pass sportsperson. And that league isn't the first, its just the first in the US. There have been a number before it. -DJSasso (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NWHL, first paid women's pro hockey league, drops puck on first season (CBS News). Hmlarson (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You said first in North America....there have been two in Canada over the years. Unfortunately American media often ignores what goes on outside their own country. (and that article even mentions that it is not the only pro league pointing to the current one in Canada) -DJSasso (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... quite aside from that it's irrelevant all the same, because there is nothing in NHOCKEY (or indeed in notability criteria generally) that accords presumptive notability to anyone participating in the "first" of something. We don't accord presumptive notability to each and every player in the first collegiate league, and we don't accord presumptive notability to each and every player in the first organized pee wee league, and we don't accord presumptive notability to each and every player in the first pro league in California, either, and I'm at a bit of a loss as to why we keep hearing this discredited argument from you. Ravenswing 19:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the correct guideline is WP:NHOCKEY, which this person fails. More importantly, they also fail WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steve Smith (talk) 08:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this a very simple case of someone clearly failing WP:GNG. The argument that this person should be considered directly as a sports person is just a poor attempt to save this article as the relevant criteria for inclusion for this athlete is WP:NHOCKEY, which she also fails. Deadman137 (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hmlarson, we have been over this with you so very many times, and your willful flouting of notability criteria in deletion discussions is just plain bad faith. No pertinent ice hockey guideline accords presumptive notability to any level of women's hockey (with the exception of play in the Olympics, which as we all know falls under a different guideline), including the NWHL, and such players must stand or fall on the GNG. This subject fails it. Yes, it is a crying shame that society pays little attention to women's hockey, but Wikipedia is still not a soapbox or a place to right great wrongs. Ravenswing 14:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look in the mirror, Ravenswing, before you decide to sling more mud. I blocked your notifications long ago. Hmlarson (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite comfortable with the look in the mirror, thanks; I don't myself ignore the provisions of notability criteria even if I have a hobby horse in play. As far as "blocking notifications" go, that's cute, and I'd ask what exactly you believe you've enjoined me from doing if it were all pertinent to the AfD or I was that curious. Ravenswing 19:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm baffeled that WP:NHOCKEY doesn't presume nobability for any women's hockey league. This needs to be changed. Admin please move to change this policy. Emass100 (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We've had the conversations about this and most of us wish that the outcome was different, however every time we analyze female players that have not played for a senior national team or at the Olympics. They cannot pass the standard required for the WP:GNG, that is why we don't presume notability for any women's hockey league players. Until the level of coverage and interest in the women's game increases there really isn't much that we can do. Deadman137 (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Emass100: for reference, the most recent discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive69#Women's hockey. It was based on the accusations that the "notability guidelines have completely disregarded Women's Ice Hockey". NHOCKEY was developed and refined for over a decade for the men's leagues, however, the women's leagues were sparsely covered in media. I made a suggestion that the ice hockey project look into seeing if the only paid women's league (at the time) could meet any minimum requirement for inclusion to become a hard-set guideline in NHOCKEY that meets GNG (at least 95–99% of the time, we cannot make an inclusion in NSPORTS that would violate not meeting GNG), thereby fast-tracking the arduous discussions from refining NHOCKEY previously though 1000s of AfDs. In the discussion of actual sources (not just votes with WP:ILIKEIT reasons), the NWHL was found slightly lacking and slightly under the ECHL in coverage (currently listed in NHOCKEY #3 as the lowest level of presumed notability). However, many women hockey players do meet GNG. The same women also typically meet NSPORTS as an Olympian or NHOCKEY in the top-level of the IIHF World Championships. Yosemiter (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Emass100:, as with every other notability guideline on Wikipedia, we just don't use WP:ITSIMPORTANT arguments. I don't believe I'm a cementhead here (for one thing, I bet I'm one of the only hockey contributors on Wikipedia who regularly attends collegiate women's matches), but the unfortunate fact of the matter is that the world just doesn't care about women's hockey. The example I've used about the lack of coverage the sport receives is that when the Boston team won the CWHL championship, the Boston Globe -- a paper with multiple Pulitzers for its nationally renowned sports coverage -- didn't mention it at all. I only learned of the win from a blogpost on the Hockey News site. As Yosemiter states, for one of these discussions I examined ten prominent NWHL players, all of them national team members, some of them Olympians, and found that none could meet the GNG. (And that being said, surely you're aware that policies and guidelines on Wikipedia are set by community consensus, not by admins.) Ravenswing 06:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the most recent discussion was here: Bray Ketchum. If you'd like an example of how to start and derail a "consensus" discussion and make up standards that are conveniently only applied to women to make sure they are excluded from a sports notability guideline, see the example provided above Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive69#Women's hockey. If my assessment is not true, some succinct links would be provided, not vague bs. The same standard does not exist for men. Hmlarson (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given your near-complete refusal in many such AfDs to back up your assertions that the subjects meet the GNG with any links (let alone to actual qualifying sources), your challenge is scarcely in good faith. But if you would care to analyze any criterion on NHOCKEY, determine that too few players who meet that standard can meet the GNG, and present that evidence, go for it; unlike yourself, I'm quite willing to let the facts be shaped by the evidence as opposed to the other way around. As Djsasso and Yosemiter accurately state in the Ketchum AfD, the NHOCKEY criteria have been tested, and refined, and tested again, and refined again, over the course of many years and many archives. That this hasn't produced the result you want is obvious, but NHOCKEY was established many years before you became active on Wikipedia, and we are not required to secure your personal approval to maintain the standard. Ravenswing 10:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We could include women in NHOCKEY, but it would be some form in the last section that could consist of:
For coaches or managers of ice hockey teams, substitute "coached" or "managed" for "played" in the player guidelines.
For women hockey players and personnel that do not meet the above criteria, coverage in women's college and professional teams of individuals has been found to be inconsistent and therefore the player must meet GNG independently.
For participants in defunct leagues who satisfy any of these achievement standards, please see the ice hockey league assessment maintained by the Ice Hockey WikiProject. For leagues still in existence, only those listed above satisfy the specified criteria.
But something tells me you would still not be happy about. Not to mention if I brought that proposal up at WT:NSPORTS, I would get shot down as it is unusual to have an anti-criterion and, as Ravenswing correctly points out in this AfD, is not used for all the other NSPORTS guidelines that have no mention of women's leagues.
(As for "derail a "consensus" discussion", YOU asked for the links and hence pushed the discussion away from the AfD at hand with unfounded accusations, exactly as you are doing here.) Yosemiter (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually thinking about making that proposal soon because I am tired of having to explain that women weren't forgotten in the SNG but that they were purposefully left off except for the World Championships. To avoid the anti-criteria would just have to state it as women's players must have played in the world championships. Some other sports do it that way. Just make it clear that there is one of the criteria that they can meet. -DJSasso (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would support #6 being changed to Played on a senior national team for the men's or women's World Championship, in the highest pool the IIHF maintained in any given year if proposed (and it sounds less condescending than my phrasing). I highly doubt that would alleviate Hmlarson's objectives though, hence my mention that each subject must meet GNG independently (which editors commonly seem to forget that NPSPORTS is subject to). Yosemiter (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think anything would alleviate Hmlarson's concerns short of stating all professional players met it. My intention was more to stop the argument that we don't even mention them from others when we technically do in #6. -DJSasso (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the very broad notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. I've lost track of how many times we've had this discussion that playing in the NWHL does not grant automatic notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. notability established through article improvements. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maelcum Soul[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Three credits at IMDb. Rest of article is COI-generated. Quis separabit? 15:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The article gives no indication of meeting any WP notability criteria and my own search didn't find anything I believe shows that WP:GNG or any SNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been improved, so I have reconsidered my original vote (as I said I would below). Papaursa (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment not sure if she meets GNG or not...but a search on Newspapers.com shows a few sources, and there may be others using other variations of name. I didn't get a chance to add any to the article but others may want to look into newspaper archives. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I found was her name mentioned in articles concerning John Waters. Didn't think that was enough to meet WP:GNG, more like WP:NOTINHERITED, but if someone finds better coverage I will reconsider my vote. Papaursa (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment In 2007, someone commented on Talk:Maelcum_Soul, "Am I the only one who thinks these various slim "Dreamlander" articles should perhaps be grouped into one page?" Maybe on the end of Dreamlanders with a redirect? StrayBolt (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:ENTERTAINER and there are obvious alternatives to deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEYMANN. Soul passes WP:ENTERTAINER due to lead roles in films, serving as the artist model for a widely reported exhibition, and for the cult following/unique influence on the art scene of Baltimore. I added to the article with new sources. Thsmi002 (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steve Smith (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notability now seems established. PamD 08:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been greatly improved. [40] Notability established. Dream Focus 17:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thsmi002. I also added an article where Waters says she was a big influence on him and his makeup artist. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG but may warrant a move to a different title, which is an editorial decision to be made after the conclusion of this AfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confederate (TV series)[edit]

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

No matter how notable or whatever happens, TV shows (either pilots or entire serieses) should not have mainspace articles until they have progressed into production. Anyone creating an article for such works is clearly violating WP:NFF and WP:TVSHOW. As of February this year, it looks unlikely that Confederate will ever enter production, therefore we shouldn't have an article for the series/pilot/whatever until it has been confirmed to have entered production. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how WP:NFF can override WP:GNG, which this meets handily. Maybe it would be better titled something like Confederate TV series controversy? clpo13_(talk) 08:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 08:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you kinda answered your own question. That's why we have an article called Murder of Jessica Lal (not Jessica Lal) and Killing of Cecil the lion (not Cecil the lion). It's the controversy that made the show notable, not its existence (although we have WP:CRITICISM which says, "An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged because it tends to be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy"). Did you even read WP:TVSHOW? It says, "Television pilots which have not been picked up to series are not normally eligible for Wikipedia articles". Confederate wasn't even picked up as a pilot. --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see word "normally" in your above quote from WP:TVSHOW. Seems the abundant pre-production coverage of this show makes it not normal. WP:TVSHOW doesn't say pre-production shows should never have an article, it says they shouldn't have an article if there is not significant evidence that it has notability for reasons beyond simple confirmation of its existence. Confederate is notable beyond simple confirmation of its existence due to the controversy, subject matter and debate. It has been significantly covered in multiple reliable sources. DynaGirl (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:GNG. Significant coverage by The Guardian, USA Today, Entertainment Weekly, Vulture.com, Salon, The Atlantic etc. DynaGirl (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft Per Kailash29792; the consensus for WP:TV and WP:FILM is that articles should not exist until production starts, meaning that this should have been immediately moved to the draft space. The content can be included in the articles for the showrunners; the article clearly states that there it's even doubted that this series will be produced, further supporting the lack of requirement for an article. -- Alex^TW 12:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form. The controversy around this show received significant coverage. This is not the normal case that WP:TVSHOW is contemplating. If this content can be merged into some other appropriate article and be made a redirect from Confederate (TV series), have at it, but I can't think what article that would be. Vadder (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The showrunner's articles? -- Alex^TW 00:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have to wonder, if this doesn't get picked up as a series does any of it matter? I doubt notability would be enduring. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HBO stated they mishandled the announcement of this show so it seems that sort of thing would matter in the future to networks and showrunners regarding show promotion and announcement. If the show is actually pulled before airing due to the social media controversy, that would matter to various activists. It would be a notable case of the effectiveness of Hashtag activism. Either way per WP:NTEMP notability is not temporary. DynaGirl (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the show is actually pulled before airing - It looks like the program was never even a starter.

before airing due to the social media controversy - We would need reliable sources to confirm that's what happened and we're unlikely to see that. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? This seems like the kind of thing that entertainment rags would lick up. If it's cancelled, there'll be no official reason as usual, but there's about a 100% chance that we'll have people "claiming victory" based on the original social media backlash, and then there'll be news stories on the cancellation + grave dancing + attributing it to the protest. It might not even be accurate (maybe it gets cancelled due to budget woes with the protests just a side problem), but it'll be in reliable sources. SnowFire (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't gotten far enough to be cancelled. At the moment it's just a proposal and it looks like it's an abandoned proposal at that, with people already moved on to other projects. I doubt there will be any enduring notability with the proposal just an idea that never went anywhere. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sufficient sources to satisfy the WP:GNG, which is all that matters here, and which WP:TVSHOW is merely a descendant of that attempts to suss out good rules of thumb for when something is likely to be notable. Strictly as a TV show this doesn't qualify as notable of course, but it qualifies anyway due to the wide interest and media coverage of it for non-produced-episode related reasons. See List of television series canceled before airing an episode for a list of notable topics that nevertheless failed as TV shows. Note, that as a side issue, it may be reasonable to move this article to Confederate (proposed TV series) if it is considered REALLY important to make clear that it doesn't exist yet, but that's not really that important. SnowFire (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify At this point, all that's happened is coverage of the announcement of the series, and HBO hasn't advanced it further than that. We don't usually create articles for mere pilots (Heat Vision and Jack being the most visible exception), and we certainly don't create articles about things that are mere pitches. If this ever gets beyond that stage, then we might be able to advance this more; as-is, there's nothing here except the announcement and reactions to it. Nate • (chatter) 00:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Per WP:TOOSOON, the show hasn't even begun production, and the fate of the show is up in the air due to D&D doing their Star Wars stuff now. Yes it has controversy, but draft unless more news is announced. I'd say summarize on D&D's articles for now.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely a notable topic covered by numerous highly reliable sources. There's no good reason to deprive readers of factual information. Just because it may never get produced does not make the topic less notable. (This was just discussed on the article's talk page, where there was also no consensus to delete.) Station1 (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move because this Wikipedia article as it is is falsely claiming that a TV series is forthcoming when we cannot verify that this is the case. However, because the development (which does not guarantee production) has been well-discussed, we should include that subject matter on Wikipedia but present it in the proper scope. I would suggest something like Development of Confederate and to strip the article of any elements that frame it as an actual TV series, such as the TV infobox and the TV categories. If a TV series does result, we can revise to present an authentic TV series article and have the development and related discussion content as part of its early background. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft per WP:TOOSOON – BoogerD (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A TV series or other creative work can still be notable even if it is not produced or released if its meets WP:GNG. That, I think, is clearly the case, given the great amount of substantial, reliably sourced coverage cited in the article. The topic appears significant both as part of the oeuvre of noted TV creators David Benioff and D. B. Weiss, and for the criticism and other reactions it engendered. Sandstein 20:24, 29 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 speedy keep. per WP:SKCRIT#1 - no rationale for deletion given (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

San Pedro Claver[edit]

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

Ericcub7 (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ericcub7: what reason do you want to delete this article? They appear to be notable as they have played in the CAF Confederation Cup, so I am inclined to keep. However, the article needs much improvement. GiantSnowman 11:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @GiantSnowman: There hasn't been any information added in almost 3 years, and essentially no notice of significance regarding this team
  - This reason is not for deletion, you can see WP:STUB. Hhkohh (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:FOOTYN as per this has played in the CAF Confederation Cup.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as no reason for deletion has been given.--TM 12:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No reason given for deletion, and in any case, they're notable. Smartyllama (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as no reason for deletion given. I've also updated the article. SportingFlyer talk 05:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to SHV Holdings. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supergas[edit]

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

No indication of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. CSD tag deleted by article creator, who has identified themselves as being COI on the article talk page. The only sources in the article are a passing mention in a very short article about the parent company and a 17-year-old article in what looks like a business blog that has every appearance of being nothing more than a press release. No indication of independent, significant coverage in searches of relevant business press. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SHV Holdings, the parent company. Nom is correct that there is no independent notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH so redirect as above and mention there, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 09:16, 27 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 20:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SS09[edit]

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

Single offline source, no apparent notability. Not in development. Looks like a spoof to me. Heliotom (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE...The only sources I can find are Wiki-mirrors and a T-shirt (LOL), see: [41] --RAF910 (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable if there's only one source. The article text seems dubious as well, since it's apparently "still in design" since 2010. Possibly a scrapped project, in which case it's for certain not notable. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:20, 22 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Stan Ekeh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not sure how this has sat here since 2007, tagged since 2012. The sources don't support almost any of the content. Source 1 doesn't work. Source 2 is a PR release and not independent. Source 3 works but I'm not sure how reliable it is. All in all, a very weakly-sourced vanity piece with the majority of the major content, "multi billionaire" etc., completely unsupported by any sourcing. KJP1 (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see it was Afd'd a year ago. It certainly hasn't improved. KJP1 (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not seeing enough coverage to warrant an article. Therefore it fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a businessman who does not meet any notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:05, 25 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 20:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Porscha Coleman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article consists mostly of SPS and unreliable sources. Google search shows only brief mentions. – Lionel^(talk) 06:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to being a notable actress. To be fair, I think this applies to lots of articles we have. I actually think our whole set of articles on actors has way too many articles that are not much more than birth date and filmmography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:37, 25 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Pinches[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the comment declining a WP:PROD: I don't see significant coverage in the snooker press, and am not convinced that would be sufficient event if demonstrated, unless the (non-policy essay of) Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports/Notability is met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barry Pinches, his father, as is often done with non-notable athletes related to notable ones. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Fitzgerald (ice hockey), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph LaMotta, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Doolittle (2nd nomination), among other similar AfD's. Plus a bunch which were always redirects, like Tyler Nevin, Tate Matheny, and Ryan Ripken which were always redirects. Smartyllama (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearest case for deletion of an article we're ever likely to see; nowhere close to satisfying WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT. Montgomery15 (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of schools in Chennai. Sandstein 20:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

European International School Chennai[edit]

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

Sources self-referenced, not reliable sources, no coverage in reliable sources Diptanshu 💬 05:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent sources. I'm amazed that SwisterTwister moved this to mainspace in this state, after it had been declined by another AfC reviewer. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in Chennai as there is nothing to say about the school as is, except that it exists. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:05, 22 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amaladas Rajesh[edit]

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

Non-notable personality Diptanshu 💬 05:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman. We seem to have an overabundance of articles on such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable and promotional about a businesses person Heshiv (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Night Flight Orchestra. Sandstein 20:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes The World Ain't Enough[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM the coverage is routine stuff about a future album. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. I'm not against a redirect until there are enough sources to show notability...after the release Dom from Paris (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist article The Night Flight Orchestra for now per WP:MUSICOUTCOMES, it's too soon. Can be rewritten if and when the notability guideline for recordings is met. Sam Sailor 19:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 04:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I have no idea if this is or will be notable, but agree with the redirect as it could very well wind up being WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer talk 05:35, 22 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. Enigma^msg 20:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Shahnazarian[edit]

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

Overall, the guy owns a business and made some records. Besides that, I found a few social media sites, but not enough to qualify him for any sort of article all to himself... TJH2018 talk 04:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 11 year old vanity article from a blocked SPA editor. Lacks significant, independent reliable sources and nothing other than credit listing turns up with an internet search. The AllMusic profile is merely a lists of credits. Overall, nothing to suggest this subject is anything other than a run-of-the-mill industry figure. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable music producer. That an article like this can have survived over a decade says that we need better methods of control to exclude such junk articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 26 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 20:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sonarpur Mahavidyalaya[edit]

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

Article makes no claim of notability and mostly consists of a poorly formatted list of departments. A brief google search didn't turn up any indication that it is notable in anyway. {{u|zchrykng}} ^{T|C} 21:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poor article, it's true, but accredited degree-awarding institutions are invariably kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on what policy? Or the classic circular reasoning to keep because things were kept in the past etc. The Banner talk 15:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I deleted the list of departments for now as they weren't sourced to any particular page on the website, and added back the degrees that were affiliated with University of Calcutta as they had a reference that actually listed them. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Where's the WP:NOTABILITY? This article is not even covered with any reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrayonS (talk • contribs) 09:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I was unable to produce any non-abysmal references for this article after a decently thorough Googling. I suspect that there might some references in local or print media that would be useful. That said, keeping this article hoping that someone goes that deep and dredges them up is eventualist to the point of absurdity, and there is not much worth saving in the article as it sits. Probably notable, but the sources aren't there to verify that... Tazerdadog (talk) 10:50, 22 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. Enigma^msg 02:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jerson Sapida[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why do you say such a ugly comment about the guy who made NBA 2K great? He has many reliable sources, you need to research some more.

Here are the reliable and independent sources:[42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53] This is evidence that he is notable! Maude~Duggel (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is nothing ugly about the comment. It is a statement of fact in regards to Wikipedia based notability. Unfortunately the "references" you provided are single line mentions or 404s and do little to add to notability. reddogsix (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This editor has been creating a string of non-notable articles. [54] Natureium (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, I think the creator is doing good work, but still needs to learn what notability means in the context of Wikipedia. It doesn't mean fame, an it doesn't mean exposure by virtue of a name being mentioned in multiple places. We need significant coverage, and that's what's been lacking in the creator's contributions, for the most part. This is an encyclopedia, so articles we have should be a record of human knowledge. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The creator should have left this in draft space and worked on it there. This isn't a mainspace-ready article. I just removed about 15 redundant citations that were nothing more than trivial mentions, quotes, interviews, or otherwise primary sources. What's left seems to be more of the same. I am not seeing evidence of meeting WP:GNG or even Wikipedia:Notability (people). ~Anachronist (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep because he is notable just for 2K Sports! Maude~Duggel (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wikipedia based notability is defined in WP:N and WP:GNC. Please show us how the article subject meets the criteria needed to establish Wikipedia based notability needed for inclusion into Wikipedia.reddogsix (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Maude~Duggel: No, he isn't notable for 2K Sports. Please be aware that notability is not inherited.
You're new here, you created this and several other articles that have been deleted for similar problems, I've moved one or two of yours to draft space for you to prevent their deletion while you work on improving them. You started this article in draft space and moved it into main space before it was ready, apparently before you have learned the English Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. A main space article must meet WP:GNG at a minimum. See Wikipedia:Golden rule for a brief overview of what is expected for main-space articles. Your articles haven't met the basic requirement of having significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You included a bunch of sources. Not all reliable sources are independent (like interviews), and not all independent sources are reliable (like blogs and some niche publications). None of your sources meet all three requirements of being reliable, independent, and having significant coverage of the subject. Passing mentions don't work. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy keep~~ but he is one of the greatest Filipinos ever lived! Please take the deletion tag off and his article will be more expanded with other information about him! Thank you. Maude~Duggel (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Maude~Duggel: You don't get to vote more than once, so your 'speedy keep' has been struck. You are also ignoring the advice given. You have 6 days, plenty of time, to make improvements before this discussion is closed. And, you haven't offered any 'keep' arguments based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Unsubstantiated assertions about the subject's fame or greatness, and begging to stop the debate, aren't arguments for keeping the article. We need evidence, not WP:ILIKEIT statements. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources were not notable Thegooduser Let's Chat 01:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable video game producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. The creator really needs to stop creating new pages here until they learn wikipedia policy. I've dealt with at least two other hopeless pages in AfC they made. Legacypac (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet notability requirements. Brad v 04:50, 27 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 20:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suraj Patel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was deleted in December due to WP:NPOL not being met and there being no non-political notability. That is still the case; the "new references" (likely sufficient to prevent WP:G4 deletion) are about political fundraising or various scandals, and do not make him notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a notable subject by any objective measure. HPLeu (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election does not get a person into Wikipedia in and of itself — a person has to win the election and thereby hold the seat, not just run in it, to clear WP:NPOL as a politician. And that goes double for people who, as of right now, are still only as yet non-winning candidates in party primaries — being a primary challenger to an incumbent congressperson is very definitely not a notability criterion in its own right. There is no evidence of preexisting notability here for any other reason independent of his candidacy, and no evidence that anything has happened to change the notability equation since the first discussion — as near as I can tell, HPLeu's grounds for claiming that the equation had changed was that Patel outraised Maloney in April, but that's not a notability criterion for a candidate either. He'll be eligible to have this article recreated on or after November 6 if he wins the seat, but nothing here is grounds for him to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOL doesn't say that elected officials are notable and candidates for office are not notable. It says elected officials may not be notable and unelected candidates may be notable (so long as they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article", which this subject has.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPLeu (talk • contribs) 16:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no candidate in any election anywhere who ever doesn't have some "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" — so if "some coverage exists" were all it took to distinguish a notable candidate from a non-notable one, then every candidate in every election would always be notable and Wikipedia would be nothing more than a repository of campaign brochures anymore. So the test for making a candidate notable just for being a candidate is not just "some coverage exists" — it is "so much coverage exists that there's a credible reason to believe people will still be looking for an article about him ten years from now even if he loses the race", which is not what this is showing. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 28 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 merge to Cedarville University. Because WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cedarville University Water Tower[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGEO, few independent sources Willsome429 (say hey or see what I’ve worked on!) 00:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a university water tower with the school's logo and wordmark on it...like all universities with water towers. Talking about the paint used on the tower and that it has a police phone in the tower's parking lot seems like stretching the article absurdly to justify WP:N, but we have no Ypsilanti Water Tower by any stretch of the imagination here. Nate • (chatter) 05:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect – To Cedarville University. Would fit nicely in to that page.ShoesssS ^Talk 15:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable about this water tower.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:ROTM water tower. Acnetj (talk) 07:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Uni per ATD-R. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the university. Note we are obligated to seek wp:ATD alternatives to deletion, and a good one is available here.This source (in the article) is reasonable coverage of the university's revision of its mascot branding and its usage of the image on the water tower, and that this was/is important to the university. Justifies including the photo into the university article. I say "Merge" rather than "Redirect" because this is substantial content, although small in amount. --Doncram (talk) 15:08, 23 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. Enigma^msg 20:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Alliance[edit]

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

A directory-like listing on a minor far-right group. Does not meet WP:NORG and significant RS coverage not found. The group has participated in local demonstrations and has garnered some local coverage, but that's about it. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources which are insufficient to build an NPOV article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I say Keep the page. the page still needs more work. Leftwinguy92 (talk) 06:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)(User:Leftwinguy92, it is customary to mention that you are the creator of a page; just so you you know, I can see that you are newish here. It takes a while to learn the ropes.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There may be enough coverage to keep this poorly-sourced article about a new, far right political group. Here in the National Post : How the violent Charlottesville rally unmasked key players in Montreal's alt-right. Here: Montreal neo-Nazi, outed this week, was lead cheerleader for deadly U.S. cell on the CBC. However, since the coverage is about a small group now identified as led by a man affiliated with the The Daily Stormer, it may make sense to MERGE it to the The Daily Stormer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I say Keep the Page for a while. the group is becoming more and more and more prominent with more News of them by the international media and the Canadian media. Leftwinguy92 (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment: "minor far-right group" articles are more trouble than their worth. I'd say give it a year or so; if it becomes more notable, then sure. For now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Note that the article consists almost entirely of a "mission statement" apparently lifted from the group's Facebook page. That's where this information belongs, not here. So I don't see anything worth merging either. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe Speedy Delete - Leftwinguy92, who also created the page, looks to have been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. As such I've struck the comments above. This would qualify the article for WP:G5 except that another user made nonminor edits (arguable, since the result is a net negative, just copying in the organization's mission statement (?)). Also possible is WP:A7 as there's no claim of significance here. Yet another CSD option is WP:G11, given it's an article comprising a few most basic words and a big mission statement paragraph. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing in the article indicates notability, and the article's creator is a banned sockpuppet. PK T(alk) 13:18, 27 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.