Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 May	25 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 delete. – Joe (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missoni Baia[edit]

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

An article on an under-construction apartment building, neither WP:GEOFEAT nor WP:GNG is met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about the coverage in reliable independemt sources? Doesn't it pass the general notabiloty guidelines? FloridaArmy (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Borderline promotional to boot. Deb (talk) 12:19, 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 keep. – Joe (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Probasco[edit]

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

There doesn't appear to be significant coverage in reliable sources. --Michael White^T·C 23:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm open to merging some or all of it to the article Henry Probasco House. (That said, on looking at it again, the German article implies much more can be said of him.)--T. Anthony (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 23:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Historically notable figure in Cincinnati and Ohio. There is a lot of historical information about the man and likely much more can be found. In just a short time I found historical information: Cincinnati.com, Cincinnatimagazine.com, Beardbarons.com, 1899 auction of items belonging to Henry Probasco, and one from the University of Cincinnati library. The Newberry Library in Cincinnati houses a large collection of Arabic and Turkish Manuscripts that came from the collections belonging to Henry Probasco. Otr500 (talk) 07:35, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew G. C. Sage[edit]

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

Only substantive coverage from a RS is from Barbarians at the Gate: The Fall of RJR Nabisco. Other RS coverage is fleeting and thus does not establish notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 23:51, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Behzad Qasemi[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)

Non-notable hacker/programmer. Doesn't meet WP:BIO or GNG. Vermont (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Editor-1 (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hacker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article extenal links are the source of it. The links are from Iran's important newspaper. About him in iran he is a famous man. And there were articles about him but was lie so I decided to write the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookernight (talk • contribs) 23:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC) — Bookernight (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep its truth in my country — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightwoorlding (talk • contribs) 12:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC) — Lightwoorlding (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notabilty. 10^Eleventeen 22:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stylianos Atteshlis[edit]

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

Tagged as being unsourced for six years, and still unsourced. My own searching only turned up non-WP:RS sources. Not included in this nomination, but linked for reference, is Draft:Researchers of Truth. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If someone disagrees they are welcome to find the sources that noone could find in the past six years. Good luck! Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per R Roy Smith's comment on Thursday24 May 2018 regarding the researchers of truth sandbox submission and suggested edits on I have added WP:RS cites and links on the Stylianos Atteshlis page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stylianos_Atteshlis for your consideration as requested. These are references to Dr. Stylianos Atteshlis (aka Daskalos) on the Oprah.com web site and in Oprah Winfrey's O Magazine and the Common Ground Magazine included below

Spiritual Energy article about Daskalos (Dr. Stylianos Atteshlis) by Mark Matousek in the July 2003 issue of Oprah Winfrey's O magazine. This past issue is not online but is on http://www.researchersoftruth.org/daskalos_researchers_of_truth_system-htm/written-accounts in its entirety including the magazine's cover showing the name of the article (Spiritual Energy) on the cover.

How to Radiate Positive Energy: Spiritual Energy article Daskalos (Dr. Stylianos Atteshlis) on Oprah.com see http://www.oprah.com/spirit/how-to-radiate-positive-energy-spiritual-energy

The Teaching Common Ground Magazine article about Daskalos (Dr. Stylianos Atteshlis) by Mark Matousek see http://www.commongroundmag.com/back-issues.html This artice is also located at http://www.researchersoftruth.org/the-teaching

A Cyprus newspaper article on his obituary OBITUARY The Cyprus Weekly, September 1 – 7, 1995 is reproduced here * OBITUARY The Cyprus Weekly, September 1 – 7, 1995

Are these 3rd party source citations, Please do not delete this article

Let me know if you need anything else

thank you for your consideration

Daniel Anukpaba (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC) — Anukpaba (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. 10^Eleventeen 23:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attack of Life: The Bang Tango Movie[edit]

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

I dug through all the references (there are plenty) and nearly all of them point to unreliable blogs. The one exception is to an LA Weekly write up where the subject (this documentary) is mentioned in passing, exactly once and the article is quite obvious;y not about about the movie, making it not in-depth coverage. For these reasons, and with my preliminary news search, this seems to fall short of WP:FILM. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have added more references. Hopefully this will help. Thatguy1987 (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the film never had an official release, it had garnered enough attention to still be reviewed and written about positively on many respectable music websites such as Blabbermouth, Metal Sludge, Bravewords, Sleazeroxx, KNAC, etc. which I have added more references for. Plus the story around the making of the film was interesting enough for the filmmaker to be interviewed on many of these sites as well. Also the coverage the film has recieved dates back to 2012(Blabbermouth reference) and is as recent as May 2018(Rock out with your Doc Out reference); for a film that has never been given an official release, that showcases notability in my opinion. Thatguy1987 (talk) 12:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)i[reply]

Keep. The references may be good enough now, but perhaps add a tag to seek more references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.scaringi (talk • contribs) 18:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has been significantly improved since coming to AFD with the addition of multiple reliable sources with direct and significant coverage so it passes WP:GNG, thanks 20:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Keep On the basis of the article in its current form, the film seems to meet the GNG, even if it might be on the edge of WP:NFILM. Chetsford (talk) 18:15, 31 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. – Joe (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bel'ange Epako[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY --BlameRuiner (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although sad he died so young sadly there really isn't enough here to satisfy WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:22, 29 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) 12:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY and I'm not seeing anything to meet WP:GNG either. Smartyllama (talk) 16:38, 31 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Kai-Hwa Wang[edit]

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

Notability concerns. The references here don't suggest GNG is met, and on Google search I merely find articles she has written. Based on the longer bio at her website, I don't believe either WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF is met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subject has over 50 awards, distinctions and is a published reporter with NBC. Notability includes: Michigan Historical Society State History Award for Best Article in Michigan History Magazine, "Vincent Chin: A Catalyst for the Asian-American Civil Rights Movement," 2017, Education Writers Assn. National Seminar fellowship, "A New Era for Education and the Press," Washington DC, 2017, Education Writers Association and Poynter fellowship, “Separate -- And Still Unequal,” Poynter, 2017, Columbia Univ Grad School of Journalism Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma Midwest Reporting Institute fellowship on Gun Violence, 2017, Education Writers Association fellowship,Univ of Penn School of Education, 2017, Michigan State University Asian Pacific American Heritage Month Keynote Speaker, 2016, Asian Pacific American Medical Students Association (APAMSA) Conf. Keynote Speaker, 2016, Clague Middle School Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day Keynote Speaker, 2016, University of Michigan Law School Korematsu Day speaker, 2017, 2016, 2014, Association of Opinion Journalists (AOJ) and Poynter Institute Minority Writers Seminar Fellowship, 2015, National Association of Science Writers Diversity Fellowship, 2015, University of Michigan A/PIA High School Conference Keynote Speaker, 2013, Purdue ImaginAsian Identity and Experience in Contemporary Asian Pacific America Art Exhibition, “The Dinner Party,” prose poetry and multimedia artwork, Purdue, Indiana; also Conf. Keynote Speaker; 2010, New America Media Ethnic Media Expo & Awards Fellowship, Atlanta, 2009. and Nominated for Michigan Governor's Advisory Council on Asian Pacific American Affairs, 2009 and distinctions that go back to 1988/1991, although her most serious recognition began around 2006. Strongly feel WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF is met. Thaoworra (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That huge wall of text makes it hard for me to deal with and some/most of it proves nothing (I'm nowhere close to notable and I can say I've been a Middle School keynote speaker and been a paid contributor to a 2 major US city newspapers' websites). Looking at WP:NPROF I think she clearly doesn't meet criterias 2-3 or 4-9. I don't think 1 is met because no secondary sources and keynotes don't prove 4. For WP:NAUTHOR I think her best claim is 1 and again see no sourcing. This subject seems to be good at promotion and so while not notable now would not be surprised if she becomes notable in the future. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because there are no secondary sources at all and because none of the mentioned awards (is being a keynote speaker an award? is being nominated for a prize an award?) seems to grant notability. Unless she is the winner of an international or at least national prize awarded by a prestigious institution and the event generated sufficient media coverage, I think there is no notability here. Nevertheless, I encourage the editors to make a good search and try to save the article. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@G.scaringi: One this page was first created (full of copyright issues) and again when it was nominated here I spent some time exploring notability. Others might find more/different things than I did but I did make a good faith search. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the awards are of the type that give notability. No sign she is at all a notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:16, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Year-End Adult Pop Songs of 1996[edit]

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

per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. There are no independent sources cited on this article, and even if they exist, this is excessive data with no clear encyclopedic value. Articles have been created for every year from 1996 to 2017 on this topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

procedural note: if someone has a script to add the other 21 pages, please do; otherwise I'll add them myself if there is support for deletion, followed by an early re-list to ensure 7 days of discussion power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the other articles for deletion per the nomination below this note. Polyamorph (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The other articles should also be deleted. Polyamorph (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Non-notable with only one source on the article and one source available. Otr500 (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. The only place you were ever find these lists is the year-end issues of Billboard and, as this is just for a secondary chart, you will not find these even referenced anywhere else. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:33, 30 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. I shall apply the Wikipedia:Snowball clause; the nominator obviously has this very wrong and their talk page is littered with notices that show a problem with understanding notability. Schwede 66 09:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Moorfield[edit]

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

Is this article really important? SB Shuvo 20:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? Have you read WP:NOTABILITY? John Moorfield was a professor of Māori language. He created the Māori–English dictionary. The page has been reviewed by Snickers2686 (talk · contribs) - ask them. Tayste (edits) 20:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Clearly passes WP:NACADEMIC both from 1, The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline and 2, The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. The page is getting built so I'm sure more will be added soon but no reason for the deletion. NZFC^(talk) 21:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:NACADEMIC point 1, as given by NZFC above. Not sure if the QSO is sufficient for point 2.-gadfium 23:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Notable, highly regarded academic who passes the notability requirements for such. Grutness...wha? 00:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely meets GNG, received academic awards and honours and made significant contributions to his field. MurielMary (talk) 06:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes notability requirements, and has been rated mid-importance on both WikiProject New Zealand and by the Māori task force. Paora (talk) 08:54, 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 redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 10). (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blair St. Clair[edit]

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

There is lots of coverage of St. Clair in RS however it all relates to their participation on RuPaul's Drag Race. Article makes claims to notability for WP:ENT and WP:MUSICBIO. Miss Gay Indiana does not seem to qualify for ANYBIO. Seems to clearly not meet MUSICBIO. Think the best case can be made for WP:ENT but given overlap of coverage with Drag Race, is currently WP:1E and so should redirect to season 10 of the show. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please do not delete and just redirect this article back to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 10) if there is consensus that Blair St. Clair does not yet qualify for a standalone article. The redirect page clearly serves a purpose. 19:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Believer (talk • contribs)
- "Shantay, you stay" in the form of a redirect, please. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 10). As always, people do not qualify for articles just for competing in reality shows they didn't win — while a non-winner can still go on to build notability for other reasons after the show, such as by clearing WP:NMUSIC as a musician or by touring her kitty off afterward and getting GNG-worthy coverage for that, the winner of the season is the only person who gets to have "was on a reality show" be the grounds for inclusion in and of itself. And the WP:BLP1E coverage that the person gets in the context of being on the reality show does not constitute an instant WP:GNG pass either, because every contestant always gets that so there would no longer be any such thing as a non-notable reality show contestant anymore. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when Blair St. Clair (I do declare!) has a stronger notability claim, but just being on a reality show for a few weeks and then sashaying away does not constitute permanent encyclopedic notability in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I do declare! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RPDR10, just not enough yet. Wouldn't be that surprised to see that the queen meeting notability in 10 years, but not today, as far as I can tell.Naraht (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Season 10. She just isn't famous enough on her own to merit having her own page when queens still on the current season don't have their own page, not even bringing up the topic of contestants from previous seasons not having their own pages either. Charlie950 03:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie950 (talk • contribs)
Redirect to season 10. While I loved Blair (St. Clair, I do declare), she just doesn't have enough notability to have her own page. Hopefully we'll see more of her in the coming years though.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 06:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to season 10 per Barkeep49. Meters (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:02, 31 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 delete. copyvio from http://www.greenfrsh.com/vegetables-for-kids/ — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit and vegetables for children[edit]

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

Article is basically a how-to guide about childhood nutrition. I'm not sure what kind of encyclopedic content would fit the title "fruit and vegetables for children". Plantdrew (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC) Plantdrew (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Wikipedia is not Wikihow or a tutorial website. The article also looks like an advertisement you'd find on a health website. 344917661X (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - This is not an encyclopedic article; it basically is a how-to guide that verges on being a promotional piece.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete - per above. --Quek157 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an essay. Alternatively, merge to Michelle Obama. Natureium (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not encyclopedic. It looks like an essay perhaps good for a personal blog post. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, with commiserations to the article creator, who I presume spent some effort on this. Kingoflettuce (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

some lettuce?Quek157 (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: copyvio of [1], tagged accordingly. (How could you miss that, guys?) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:47, 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.there are so many lists which momentarily caused confusion. Carbon can be in many forms, diamond,buckminsterfullerene or graphite. under the onslaught of many graphite lists, inadvertly I mistakenly nominated this diamond(standard article) SKCRIT#1. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Quek157 (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of English football transfers summer 2018[edit]

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

WP:LISTCRUFT/WP:FANCRUFT/OR/SYNTH/LISTN. Yet another per preceedence of all Quek157 (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have List of English football transfers summer 2017 so this article seems perfectly valid to me, although it needs a cleanup I am sure it will pass WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - standard article. Giant Snowman 07:25, 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. – Joe (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philips Entertaible[edit]

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

This does not appear to meet the General Notability Guideline as all coverage I can find appears to be based on press releases. I've not actually been able to find any evidence that this product ever passed the prototype stage, therefore there can be no sustained coverage of it that isn't based on its announcement at 2006's Consumer Electronics Show. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ I'm seeing the same lack of sources but I did find a publisher paper based on the technology for ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. The technology looks interesting and it seems like something that was ahead of its time along with board games (or even tablets?). Maybe if not an article, this could be incorporated into a similar article? – TheGridExe (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that paper and immediately discarded it because it was written by Philips staff. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it still didn't seem like it was written for a marketing perspective. The paper discloses from the start that the people writing it are part of Philips. The paper also has its own sources at the end as well. – TheGridExe (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that it's not an independent source, so it doesn't meet Wikipedia's GNG requirement. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One can argue that scientific papers have some level of oversight from the editor which makes them sort-of, kind-of independent, even if not fully. But that argument is extremely weak in the case of conference papers (even for reputable and selective conferences, the editor will review the appropriateness of the paper, but not request changes to it, so oversight is minimal). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's understandable then. I will be ok with a delete per nom. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:47, 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 merge to List of Sliders characters. A Train^talk 08:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn Mallory[edit]

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

Also including the other Sliders cast articles:

These are, virtually without exception, crufty articles created many years ago when we were rather less strict about referencing. There are no references in any of these articles, and all are written in a very in-universe way. — 🦊 07:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG and in the case of the last one, WP:TNT. A character list article might be viable, but only if it was rewritten with proper sourcing._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into and rename List of Sliders cast members to List of Sliders characters. Agree that the individual pages are crufty and not notable but they are possible search terms. A single page with all characters is a reasonable outcome, don't neen separate pages for cast and characters. --J04n(talk page) 18:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into retrospective article that lists the characters. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into retrospective article that lists the characters as suggested above. Aoba47 (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TheGridExe, J04n, and Aoba47: For what it's worth, I oppose merging these into any other articles unless reliable, independent sources can be found. — 🦊 04:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content. There are a few references in the articles. The book Sliders: The Episode Guide : the Classic Episodes alone probably supports about half of the content. There are also many refs in Sliders. I can look for more. StrayBolt (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Azerbaijan football transfers summer 2018[edit]

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

Do we really need this??? Not much references, WP:LISTCRUFT/WP:FANCRUFT/SYNTH or whatsoever. Per preceedence of all the transfer lists Quek157 (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTN and WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the requisite Azerbaijan Premier League article. SportingFlyer talk 05:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:17, 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 Replace with Warpstone (magazine). And merge content from history as may be deemed appropriate. Sandstein 08:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warpstone[edit]

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

Purely fancruft description of a fictional material, no indication that it is independently notable or passes WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would merge the key details to Warpstone (magazine), which gets its name from the fictional substance, and move that page to this title. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I think ZXCVBNM is right with the general idea. If not already there, then both the overall Warpstone article needs some of this content, as well as the Mordheim/Mordheim: City of the Damned article Nosebagbear (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 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)} 15:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Whitbeck[edit]

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

Runs afoul of both WP:GNG and WP:V. Of the sources cited:

Trivial mention per WP:SIGCOV. The subject is mentioned twice in a 240 page book, and in both instances occupies no more than a passing mention.
Can't tell what this. Possibly some sort of Who's Who.
Published by the subject
Published by the subject
Doesn't exist? A google search returns only this article
Doesn't exist? A google search returns only this article
Published by the subject
Doesn't exist? A google search returns only this article
Published by the subject
Dead link to some sort of case law page, not a real source as anyone with legal issues would have public court documents
Amazon link
Dead link to a domain that doesn't exist
Dead link to a domain that doesn't exist

So, in summary, the subject does not appear to be notable and the statements made in this article are not verifiable. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where near meeting notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JPL above.GreyShark (dibra) 11:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable activist political writer who has written op-eds and a self-published book, but I cannot find that he has held a noteworthy job, published notable work, or drawn press coverage of his writing, life, or career.10:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 15:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sirius Minnesota[edit]

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

Non-notable local rec bandy team that fails to meet WP:GNG. DJSasso (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. We should at least be able to find out if it still exists, but ... Smallbones_(smalltalk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Senthil Nathan[edit]

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

This was already deleted once at AfD. Recreated and tagged CSD, the A7 was declined because the article makes claims of notability. However, the sources are all either primary, promotional, or simple faculty listings. WP:BEFORE shows the only in-depth article about him to be the current Wikipedia one - and we are not WP:RS. The actual claims to notability are not substantiated. Not to be confused with many other people of the same name. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I searched but cannot glimpse where he meets WP:NACADEMIC. -The Gnome (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't have time to investigate this properly right now, but if you search Google Scholar with Senthil Nathan & PROBOT or Senthil Nathan & John Wickham, there are lots of reliable independent review articles that Nathan performed the first-ever robotic surgery using PROBOT. Unfortunately few are free to read; one that is states: "The idea of RSS, or technologies that use robotic systems to aid in surgical procedures on-site, have been around for over three decades. In 1992, Dr. Senthil Nathan of Guy’s and St. Thomas hospital in London successfully carried out the first robotic surgical procedure (prostatectomy) in the world, using ‘Probot’, developed at Imperial College London." [2] There is also this Independent article [3] which states Nathan was involved in the development of the robot. Academics don't need in-depth articles about their life, but rather reviews of their work. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Details of Nathan's involvement in the project from book by John Wickham: [4] ff, though unfortunately Google Books is missing a key page, and [5],[6] original research articles, again not free, which suggest Nathan might publish as "MS Nathan". Another book ref [7] which also backs up the Tomorrow's World appearance; also [8],[9],[10],[11]. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Let's examine your sources, Espresso Addict. The articles you cite only mention the subject in passing, their main focus being various medical issues and robotics: in the very long article in the Journal of Military and Veterans' Health, his name is mentioned only once; in the Indy article, "Nathan" comes up twice; the Googled-text citations lead nowhere, as you also acknowledge (one misses the page where subject is meant to appear, and the other two are works by "M.S. Nathan). Even if we accept that it's "our" Nathan who's the author, the mere existence of an author's own work does not mean anything at all in terms of his own notability. We need third-party, independent sources showing independent notability.

Onwards: the book 21st-Century Miracle Medicine only mentions Nathan as the "surgeon in charge" during a robot-performed surgery. The book Surgical Treatment of Colorectal Cancer mentions Nathan only once, in its timeline of "Robotic Colorectal Surgery Worldwide"; same goes for the book Biomechanics and Robotics and the articles "Surgical Robotics" and "Improving Lives with Electronics", i.e. only one mention in each text, in passing. Conclusion : We simply have no sources.

Here's what I see. Nathan has done something in the past that is described in various texts time and again, though only briefly and in passing, as important, i.e. he performed or supervised the "first pure robotic surgery". But we still lack substantial citations from the medical world or the world in general about the person. Me, I could not find much. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. The article title is "Senthil Nathan". If we have to look up Senthil Nathan & PROBOT, Senthil Nathan & John Wickham (the "godfather" of robotics), or any combination of added names to the subject, then notability is shared and either there is not enough individual notability or the title is wrong. The subject isn't even mentioned on the John Wickham article. Otr500 (talk) 00:22, 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. – Joe (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elastic.io[edit]

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

This appears to be a thinly veiled advertisement for a non-notable business. Of the sources, only one talks about the company in any real detail and that seems to be on a dubious website hosting lots of similar marketing churn. Among other sourcing problems is repeating the same one in german and English, and repeating the link in a footnote in the external links to make it look like the article has more sources than it really does. I cannot find anything substantial either. Reyk _YO! 07:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As previously noted by the editor placing the WP:COI notice, the contributing editor's focus has been on adding material about this company. The same contributor's rationale for removing a WP:PROD was "there are existing Wikipedia articles that mention this company, as well as articles about similar companies. However, there is only one based in Germany - exactly this one" but neither mentions in other articles, nor WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, nor singularity of geographical base, even if true, would be inherent grounds for notability. The multiple Reference and External Links to articles authored by the company founders are WP:PRIMARY. There are mentions along with other service providers and inclusion in "vendor to watch" lists, so it is verifiable as a company going about its business, but this is not a business directory and I am not seeing sufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a very good chance that this organization meets the criteria for notability as the company and product offerings have been covered by independent analyst reports from firms such as Gartner and Crisp (as per WP:LISTED and yes, even though this company is not listed, the guidelines are clear that analyst reports meet the criteria for establishing notability). But the current article (marginally) fails WP:SPIP - Wikipedia is not a substitute for company sales brochures. With some editing to remove unnecessary details and make it seem less like a sales brochure, this article may turn out good. I'll hold off on a Keep !vote for now since the article needs work. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:00, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rd Storee[edit]

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

I PROD'ded this album with the rationale: >>Album was unreleased; per the WP criteria for albums at WP:NALBUM, 'Unreleased material... is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources.' This album has not received reliable media notice in its own right; while for the single If Ever has its own article with sources.<< The article's creator removed the PROD with the comment: >>There is an entire [Category:Unreleased albums]; in addition, the two singles charted.<< That is an insufficient other stuff exists argument that does not provide evidence on notability for this album (or the others in the category, for that matter). The truth is that this unreleased album has achieved no significant coverage as an entity in its own right. The only evidence points to the single which already has its own article as a notable song. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic isn't significant coverage? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a review of the album, but how is that possible when the album was never released? If it were a true review of the album it would discuss songs other than the two that are already known as single releases. Use that info to develop and expand the song articles elsewhere in WP. Otherwise AllMusic is usually significant, but here all they did was vaguely name-drop an album that doesn't exist. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptually, an AllMusic review would generally help with notability. But the WP:GNG requires significant coverage from multiple sources that cover the subject in significant detail. AllMusic would only be 1 source, and its pretty short, so I think you'd be hard pressed to call it significant. This is a rather bizarre situation - an unreleased album with multiple singles charted. I've never heard of it, but I want to look some before I !vote delete. It could have gotten coverage for being such a bizarre situation. Sergecross73 msg me 18:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the singles were intended to be advance releases to promote the album, then the album would come out later with two songs that were already hits. But then the album itself was never released. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 05:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Never released but reviewed album? There can be no notability here. Otr500 (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:NALBUM criteria for unreleased albums. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Market Sweep[edit]

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

This is not a notable event. 2 of the references are dead links. This was one day in the longest war the US has been involved. Not notable for people involved. Not notable for casualties or results Speditup (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've advanced what may, possibly, be a better deletion nomination below.Icewhiz (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy keep based on the nomination. (Also, length of the war has no difference on notability of specific battles or events within it.) WP:NOTNOTABLE is not a reason. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ per WP:SNOW, this is clearly notable, --Quek157 (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment - pending~~ Delete snow wouldn't be applicable at this point, Quek157. In any case, I thought this would be a fairly simple Keep !vote, too, but there is surprisingly little reliable coverage that appeared in a standard WP:BEFORE sweep. Lots of fairly well detailed blogs and listings in books on the war/occupation, but relatively little in terms of significant coverage from suitable sources. I would be surprised if there weren't sufficient sources, but going off what I have, it doesn't seem to satisfy any of WP:EVENTCRIT points, or the secondary points it gives if they don't apply.

The length of the war is of course irrelevant. However event notability is the primary nom argument. The keep !votes are currently just that - votes. Arguments (or just a good citation or two) need to be raised Nosebagbear (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added comments: whole book on it as well as webpage as well as another book. pretty on first page of google search. WP:BEFORE easily cover it. --Quek157 (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now further SNOW, this is a SPA account nominating it. The only purpose is to nominate this AFD --Quek157 (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Quek157: - first source has as its first summary line "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!". Therefore, it can't act as a recursive source to itself! Second book mentions the operation twice - but that's it. It's the most minimal of MENTIONs, so it doesn't qualify either. The webpage is an American military newspaper and so is going to be a fairly imbalanced source - it wouldn't count as sufficiently neutral. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

okay, first source out, but clearly notable. An American military newspaper but this is under NATO operation so secondary coverage. Anyway,fishy SPA, reported at AIV--Quek157 (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Obviously notable. The nominator also appears to be a single-purpose account. LightandDark2000 (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom would appear to be a SPA, given a flawless submission as only action, so a checkuser is probably worthwhile. However - "obviously notable" still isn't a legitimate justification. Functional sources that actually satisfy source requirements for WP:GNG are needed! Nosebagbear (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, all the sources in the page and my 2 added sources will be enough already. That's WP:GNG. --Quek157 (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just explained why those given sources weren't appropriate. Regarding the sources in the article: 2 are dead links, and didn't come up when I sought them. Freeing Fallujah is a non-neutral blog, Global Security is also a non-neutral news source (more like an industry source), "Among Warriors in Iraq" is the writer's own actions. That said, that wouldn't necessarily rule the source out, but verifying any actual (more than) mention of the operation would be pleasant. The source quality, whether here or in article, is poor Nosebagbear (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. I agree nomination is defective - I will advance a nomination: - the subject does not meet GNG. Looking for non-PRIMARY sources in my BEFORE, I found two books referring to this - here where it is listed a very long list of such operations, and here where it has a brief mention. I did mange to find this - which was done by a different unit 1.5 years apart ("market sweep" being a rather well used name for such things). The operation itself, as described, is a rather routine sweep for contraband - there's little reason to think such a minor one day operation with but 60 arrests and some contraband found would be notable - and the PRIMARY and non-RS sources in the article (wapo is there - but from half a year prior to the operation - so not about it - and that would be PRIMARY too) - do not establish notability. The books I mentioned above - also don't. The article itself is, at present, a QUOTEFARM from various participants.Icewhiz (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for advancing the nomination. I would also like to point out that the needs citations for verification block has been there since march of 2009. Nearly ten years and no one has added any additional citations. --Speditup (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why I am being accused of being a SPA. I'm new to editing wikipedia and trying to figure things out. Anyway, this is not a notable event. Anyone who has been in the military will tell you the same. There was more than one Operation Market Sweep. Even the entry itself claims, "nothing on such a small scale could net more than a handful of dealers and weapons" There was even an Operation Market Sweep in Baghdad which produced little according to Stripes. [12] --Speditup (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upon a closer inspection, do we really have any operational specific criterion in military history here? Like what kind of scope of operation or whatsoever, this is quite marginal in mention but there seems to be adequate, independent sources. The page is talking about Baghad anyway. I served as a OR4 for 2 years anyway, I can't directly tell whether it is notable here or not by having military experience. --Quek157 (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plus you are a Single Purpose Account is because your only contribution is to AFD this. If you can contribute to other area before here, it will not be called a SPA. I don't know whether you are a sock or not - that 1 person using multiple account, that need someone called checkuser to confirm (just replying to edit summary of the above editor - why put there where here is better) --Quek157 (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Quek157: There was apparently more than one Operation Market Sweep in different cities. The Operation Market Sweep article is confusing. Reference #4 has the following statements: a sudden burst of M-16 fire drops one as he tries to run over a US troop coming up on the side of his truck. I administered medical aid to the downed Iraqi, but he was too far gone. killed one of their townfolk. Yet the synopsis on the upper right says there were no casualties. The 5th reference even claims, No shots were fired. The references contradict each other. The Book you found is a 92 page self published work with no reviews. The second book with a list of operations has Operation Market Sweep happening in July of 2005. The person who originated the article appears to be a SPA. As I mentioned I am new member of wikipedia and am trying to figure it out but let's do the user check if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speditup (talk • contribs) 23:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC) --Speditup (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)--Speditup (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, narrative of citation #5 states, We chased them down, but couldn’t catch any of them in the crowded market yet the synopsis in the upper right claims that 60 members of the Iraqi insurgency were captured. Citation #4 is a dead link but appears to be written by a student for a class. It could have been a creative writing class.--Speditup (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNo opinion after all the above. not snow , i will say it is WP:ROTM coverage and unclear what the operation is. the sources are main primary ones, without secondary sources that cover in depth. Confusing accounts. Likely to be several market sweeps or rather it's market sweeping but not as an operation kind. is an operation by troops to sweep markets not Operation Market Garden. I am convinced by above nominator points. --Quek157 (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per revised nom by Icewhiz. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:56, 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. Besides, nobody really dies in comics anyway... I'm not userfying articles, but somebody at WP:REFUND might. Sandstein 19:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of deceased American comic book characters[edit]

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

It's never a good sign when a list comprises entirely in-universe events, cited solely to the works of fiction in which they appear. This survived AFD twice (2013, 2006), but our inclusion standards have tightened considerably since then.

The last AFD closed no consensus, in part because of arguments that "removal from publication with death being the cited as the cause" was a WP:LISTN-compliant inclusion criterion. Of course, when cited to the primary source, it is not. Nor does that even consider the half-page of somewhat contradictory inclusion criteria referenced on the Talk page in an effort to keep this list vaguely under control. It's also not a valid WP:SPINOUT from comic book death because, in that sense, it's largely indiscriminate.

It's possible, in a thought-experiment sense, to imagine a properly sourced, legitimate spinout list, indexing actually notable examples of the trope in the comic medium. At its most generous, that's a call to blow it up and start over, because in over a decade, that's not the direction this content has evolved. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fancruft entirely sourced to the comics themselves. Death in comic books means little, as characters are resurrected all the time, so there seems to be no pertinent reason for its existence beyond a reference for diehard comic book fans, so I doubt such a list would ever fill Wikipedia's current inclusion criteria._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, both WP:FANCRUFT and WP:NOTDIR (it's a non notable cross categorisation). Ajf773 (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:FANCRUFT sourced, if you want to call it that, only to the works of fiction themselves. Reyk _YO! 07:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as poorly defined and impossible to maintain. No one would consider a List of deaths in film, and this fits with that. Any notable death can be covered at Comic book death. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm tempted to rewrite based on the suggestion of a properly sourced, legitimate spinout list, indexing actually notable examples of the trope in the comic medium. Would the closing admin be prepared to userfy to my user space? Hiding T 14:44, 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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Prison[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After the AfD, editors have added some pretty in-depth reviews to indicate that the album has achieved coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources. With a cursory search I found another possibility: [13]. The nominator could have found these easily during the WP:BEFORE process. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are enough references to in-depth reviews in major WP:GNG-assisting publications to pass the "notability because critical attention" criterion. An album that was referenceable only to blog and zine reviews wouldn't pass that, but an album that has been singled out for attention by CBC Music and Exclaim! and the Calgary Herald most certainly does (especially because a feature on CBC Music also inherently portends the album going into rotation on a national radio network and thus passing NMUSIC #11.) Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hard to argue with the reliability of the references. Otr500 (talk) 03:35, 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. – Joe (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CompNation[edit]

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

Fails to pass GNG. Zigzig20s (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero indications of notability, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:48, 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. request of editor, to see if it can be improved. If not, I will relist. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ale Resnik[edit]

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

Not yet notable,and the awards prove it. "...under35" or "..Young ... Leader" implies that the person is still considered a beginner. That makes sense, because his major contribution has been to start a company that failed in less than 3 years.. DGG ( talk ) 15:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:56, 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 00:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Gambetta[edit]

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

The only sources that mention Gambetta are primary (IBM and APS). WP:GNG and WP:NPROF call for discussion in secondary sources. Waggie (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Passes WP:PROF#C3 as a Fellow of the American Physical Society. A GS h-index of 53 is also more than enough to pass WP:PROF#C1, even in a fairly highly-cited field. In academic biographies, sources affiliated with the subject (e.g., websites from the university where they studied) are considered acceptable for claims not likely to be contested (e.g., the years they attended that school). The article could use additional sourcing and an editing for tone, but AfD is not cleanup, and there is absolutely no question of notability here. XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as above. A mighty WP:Trout for the nominator for not carrying out WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

This long discussion has a couple of mentions about this article. StrayBolt (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and the nominator needs to go to ANI for this absolutely WP:POINTy nomination. User:Espresso Addict already told them they would have approved this page through AfC in about 30 seconds because it was a clear pass on WP:PROF This is pure disruption by the nom combined with the lies and unsubstantiated attacks against me at AfC talk - beyond unreasonable. AfDing a clearly notable subject you have been told is notable is worse than accepting a Draft that later fails to pass an AfD. Legacypac (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per XOR'easter. The most charitable explanation for this nomination is that the editor has entirely failed to understand the WP:PROF guidelines, but I fear this is not a good-faith nomination per Waggie's contributions to the Articles for Creation discussion linked above by StrayBolt. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If secondary sources are desired, then a few seconds with Google News came up with this profile & this article on his work, plus numerous others. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out he is now an IBM Fellow^[1] Which IBM calls "289 Fellows colleagues from the past 55 years as some of the most creative engineers, scientists and designers IBM — and the world — has known." That passes WP:ANYBIO #1 Legacypac (talk) 00:37, 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. – Joe (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia Explorer[edit]

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

Not seeing any real notability. Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Certainly not notable. Does not pass WP:NCORP. The two sources are promotional with content such as "firm is now providing more Internet traffic to its advertisers". The second source is to Sibray Marketing owned by the founder of West Virginia Explorer so not even an acceptable source. Otr500 (talk) 05:04, 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 delete per WP:A7, WP:G12. So Why 15:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Engr. (Mrs) Mary Emiola A.[edit]

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

Not seeing any notability. Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naija news[edit]

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

Non-notable media lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For a news portal established in 2016 to have a Wiki article, it needs more sources than what Naija news is producing. I am usaully more liberal for Nigerian publishing houses that started in the 20th century, but a 2016 website must pass GNG.HandsomeBoy (talk) 15:02, 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 redirect to List of nicknames used by Donald Trump. Sandstein 19:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pocahontas (nickname)[edit]

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

Looks like we need an AfD to kill this article, otherwise it will be resurrected again and again. Is really everything related to Donald Trump which was once fixed in media notable? Are we looking forward to articles on Trump's sink or a favorite suit? Shoud we have an article on every Trump's tweet? Ymblanter (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not redirect, per WP:G10 and WP:FANCRUFT. WP:SALT per likelihood that this title can only ever be used as a racist epithet directed at a specific person (also WP:G10). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he has used the term for Warren in speeches and tweets over a long time but no we don't need this. Legacypac (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the mind boggles with such mind boggling insignificance. -The Gnome (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete but DO~~ Redirect to List_of_nicknames_used_by_Donald_Trump, as the more significant epithets on that page already have such redirects (e.g., Crooked Hillary and Lyin' Ted. The most famous or infamous (take your pick) individual in the world used and uses this harassing name to attack another very notable politician. WP:G10 certainly applies to when would-be Wikipedia editors are disparaging, threatening, intimidating, or harassing a subject, but not when our article subjects are attacking other persons in a notable way. Vadder (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking the Delete part of my !vote so as to retain the attribution history. Vadder (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of nicknames used by Donald Trump (and absolutely not to Elizabeth Warren). I'm not just passionately excited about the long-term viability of the "list of nicknames" article, but it survived AFD pretty handily, so I'll just sit here quietly and hold a minority opinion. At the very least, if we're going to have the article in that format, we might as well point stuff like that to it. For attribution reasons, delete-and-redirect is probably not the right approach here. Protecting the redirect will almost certainly be required. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of nicknames used by Donald Trump. Trump has used this nickname for Warren on many occassions, and although the press has extensively covered it, I don't believe it's of enough significance to warrant a stand-alone article. (Certainly nowhere near the signifiance of Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.) I certainly don't agree with the notion that this page is wp:fancruft. Trump's repeated usage of this nickname for Warren has received quite an extensive amount of media coverage. Zingarese (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on redirection - if we're going to have a redirect for this, it should be disambiguated in a way which makes clear that it's both intended by the subject and heard by the target, as well as largely viewed by reliable sources (e.g. [14]) as a racial slur, not a nickname. I suggest Pocahontas (slur). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of nicknames used by Donald Trump as a plausible search term. And protect it so nobody can do this again. Smartyllama (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (keeping the edit history) to List of nicknames used by Donald Trump: this is exactly what that list is for, as the AfD discussion for that list bore out. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per Ivanvector. Not needed here at all and a definite WP:BLP issue. Nate • (chatter) 03:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Redirect to list of nicknames used by Donald Trump, and Salt/Protect for reasons already articulated by the nominator and several people including myself at multiple other similar discussions. Fails WP:GNG among other things. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of nicknames used by Donald Trump seems the most reasonable home for it. Well covered term but does not need it's own article. PackMecEng (talk) 21:27, 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 19:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist system[edit]

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

In response to not being allowed to completely overwrite socialist state with their POV that only Marxist-Leninist states can be described as socialist, a user who is now indeffed created this essay. While deliberately WP:POINTy, this essay effectively duplicates the topic we already cover at communist state. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this wannabe essay full of wannabe omniscience about wannabe socialists and please salt this wanna be zombie. -The Gnome (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt so that we don't have to deal with this nonsense anymore. --Tarage (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Andrevan@ 20:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - piling on. Already covered by communist state with substantially less POV. Jip Orlando (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:46, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pina Conti[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article since its creation over 10 years ago. Searches turned up virtually zero in-depth coverage so she does not meet WP:GNG. Neither does she pass WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete This is one of the worst cases of "Wikipedia is not IMDb" that I have seen. Wikipedia does not aim to have articles on everyone who ever appeared in a film, or even on everyone who appeared in the top 10 or so films by theatre revenues each year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable unsourced pseudo BLP that should have been deleted a long time ago. Otr500 (talk) 05:20, 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 20:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

H. David Archibald[edit]

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

Biography of a person notable only as founder and executive director of an organization that does not have an article, referenced only to an obituary on legacy.com. This is not a notability-conferring source in and of itself, however, as it simply aggregates every paid inclusion death notice published in any participating newspaper, regardless of notability or lack thereof, and founding a non-notable organization is not an "inherent" notability freebie that automatically exempts a person from having to be referenced much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. 01:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you look in the initials, he won an Order of Canada. Keep. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting named to the Order of Canada is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to clear WP:GNG. It counts as a notability claim if, and only if, the person can be shown as the subject of enough media coverage to pass GNG for whatever it was they did to earn that distinction — but the presence of an OC after his name is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts him from ever having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it wouldn't at least be a trigger to slow down, and put up any amount of templates encouraging expansion, sourcing, etc. The first instinct should not be delete. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Howzabout maybe I already did a WP:BEFORE check to see if I could find enough quality sourcing to salvage it? What's been added since the nomination is not coverage about him, but coverage which quotes him speaking in articles about something other than him — which is not notability-building sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the matter of legacy.com - the obituary was published in the Toronto Star and delivered via Legacy.com; I've updated the citation to reflect this. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. It's still the paid-inclusion "every single person who died at all, regardless of their notability or lack thereof" section in the Toronto Star classifieds, so it is not a notability-assisting source just because it's in the Toronto Star. If the Toronto Star had assigned a journalist to write a news story about his death, that would count for something (but still not for enough all by itself as the article's only source), but the strictly WP:ROUTINE paid-inclusion death notice in the classifieds counts for nothing. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the matter of the 'organization not having an article', it has a section in an article --> Centre_for_Addiction_and_Mental_Health#Addiction Research Foundation. I've updated the article accordingly. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient coverage. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 08:17, 30 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, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quartzy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes is passing mentions, WP:SPIP, and routine funding news. Created by Special:Contributions/Encomiast3 with no other contributions outside this topic. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH.

The first AfD discussion closed as "no consensus" in 2013. NCORP has been tightened since then, so it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The have some coverage including two articles from the Wall Street Journal which I believe is significant. I do think the article could use expansion Freetheangels (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Both WSJ references are blogs which fail WP:RS and fail the criteria for establishing references also. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability. Difficult to call a company founded in 2011 a "startup" at this stage too. Fail GNG, WP:SPIP and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Looks like they were written up in Nature which is pretty prestigious. On digging, their founders were PhDs at pretty notable labs. Given their niche they seem notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8001:55A6:612F:6080:7385:6B0F (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response The Nature reference is concerned with the product, not the company (which is what this article is about). Notwithstanding that, within the article itself, all of the information and data are quotations from "Marie Ebersole, who manages the chemistry preparation room at Wellesley College in Massachusetts" - the same Marie Ebersole whose image is used to promote the procut on Quartzy's website. Definitely not "intellectually independent" and fails the criteria for establishing notability. Finally, you say the founders' credentials should be taken in consideration but no, notability is not inherited. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:43, 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 redirect to Speedster (fiction). Sandstein 20:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Force[edit]

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

Comic book fancruft that is entirely in-universe and sourced entirely to the comics. More suitable for DC Wikia than Wikipedia. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Speedster (fiction), where it is defined in a single sentence. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Speedster (fiction). Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 30 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. A Train^talk 19:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fastball Special[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia isn't TVTropes and the previous AfD for this article was laughable. This is a non notable fighting move that is largely just filled with example cruft. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (to Wolverine (character), where it is mentioned), or else weak delete. The 2007 AFD is obviously a product of it's time and the arguments there can be safely ignored. As far as sources go, if there were more available like this article at Comic Book Resources, I might be arguing for retention. But... there simply aren't. This entry in Geektionary: From Anime to Zettabyte, An A to Z Guide to All Things Geek falls very far short of what's needed to establish notability (and the fact that they couldn't be bothered to correctly alphabetize their entries is irksome). And from there, we're down to a handful of reference in video game periodicals (all of which I have available only in snippet view): [15][16][17] (at least one of those is a non-X-Men context). I don't think there's enough substantial coverage there, before getting into the weeds about what constitutes "independent" sourcing of this concept. But I could imagine being convinced otherwise if there's another really solid RS source or two that I overlooked... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable Argento Surfer (talk) 13:58, 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 redirect.to the stable, Nomination withdrawn per reasons below, I sincerely recommend the author to try to expand articles or to submit them as drafts to AFC for peer editing and more help(non-admin closure) Quek157 (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnybrook Stable Fire[edit]

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

not news, one event. fails gng Quek157 (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sunnybrook Park since the stable is inside of the park. Also, you didn't link WP:GNG. I created the article as a stub to see if there would be more information to add, but there clearly isn't more. 344917661X (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will just say this is just news and WP:NOTNEWS will not allow inclusion. There is no point to keep the information anyway. I am always trying to do WP:ATD but this is a no. WP:N and WP:NOT must be together. Anyone searching for the stable will see the stable and by itself, the stable is weak in sourcing and this one event will not make the page better. I can even propose a deletion on that page based on WP:ROTM. --Quek157 (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I seen author has added the same info there, no need for merger at all, will withdrawl this nomination and do it as redirect. To article creator, it is always good to expand on new articles, rather than doing such an article which is clearly one event. We don't allow people with only one event through, much less a stable, see WP:ROUTINE and WP:BIO1E. This is the best I can do as to WP:ATD Thanks --Quek157 (talk) 12:27, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 19:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

X2vnc[edit]

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

This software does not appear notable. The article has been sourced only to its own homepage for around a decade, and is written as a how-to guide for the most part. I can find no substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. Reyk _YO! 11:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up blog entries and forum posts related to the software, but no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seems somewhat unclear if anyone has checked out the (Google) Scholar link above where X2vnc's different approach seems to be noted.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:48, 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 19:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Powers and abilities of Superman[edit]

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

Comic book WP:FANCRUFT that is more fit for DC Wikia than Wikipedia. Predominantly referenced to the comics themselves besides some minor links. The Superman article already describes this information in a more succinct and encyclopedic manner. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coverage in the Superman article is adequate, and the actual abilities have varied wildly over time. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, There's actually a pretty good article lurking here that fits with summary style. Hiding T 14:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done some small bits, The Ages of Superman: Essays on the Man of Steel in Changing Times looks like a good source for expanding and tweaking. Hiding T 15:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to Superman. The overwhelming majority of sources are WP:PRIMARY. Beyond that, the article subject is of little interest beyond dedicated fans, and in fact the lead of this article is a verbatim copy of what is in the Superman article. The remainder is based exclusively on primary sources and is WP:OR, something which is also obvious once a look is taken at the contents of the talk page. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lede is supposed to be a verbatim copy of what is in the Superman article. This suggests you are unfamiliar with practise on Wikipedia and are not following the debate, see the previously mentioned summary style guidance. Hiding T 08:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm really getting at is that beyond the lead, there is no quality content sourced with independent, non-primary sources. If the lead as copied verbatim is short enough to fit in the relevant article (as it currently is), there is no need for a split. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:43, 30 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 19:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dave McIntyre[edit]

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, who has no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage to carry it. Apart from a couple of pieces in his own local hometown pennysaver and an article in The Globe and Mail which is about Dave's father, and is thus irrelevant to the notability of Dave because it isn't about him, this is otherwise "referenced" entirely to social media posts, online music stores and PR blogs rather than reliable source coverage. The sourcing here simply isn't cutting it at all, and the article says nothing about him that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much more reliable source coverage than this. There's a likely conflict of interest here, as the article was created by an WP:SPA named "Maplesyrupketchup" and has since been edited by another SPA named "Dave1010100" — but as always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations venue for aspiring future notables to promote themselves. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a poorly-sourced article on a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 10:46, 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 and salt Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Botnari conductor[edit]

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

It would appear to me the assertions made in this article simply do not correspond to what can be be verified.

First of all is the assertion that the subject is an "internationally renowned conductor". If that was the case, it would be expected that there would be an internet footprint for this conductor in reliable sources about classical music. As can be seen (Find sources:... ) at the top of this nomination, there appears to be nothing of that sort.
The assertions that the subject of this article has been involved with orchestras and organizations with blue links in the current form of the article similarly are without verification.
The red linked orchestras and organizations - Barcelona Philharmonic Orchestra, British Musician Union - are also of concern. Perhaps they have yet Wikipedia articles?
As for "www.royalmusicsociety.us", it would appear that, most kindly put, it a platform for new musicians to put forward their works. I do not think it is an appropriate external link, let alone a reference for a living person.

Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No attempt to provide evidence of notability. Already salted at Yuri Botnari. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and saltmultiple A7 G11 per user and this doesn't seems better and can we snow close this fast?Quek157 (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, whereas the subject might be notable, the currebnt article has been written by a bunch of COI editors, and I do not see how it can be brought to our standards without being deleted first. If someone wants to recreate the article, it must be an independent user, who will perform a careful analysis of sources, establishing their reliability and independence.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:20, 31 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

City Centre Patna[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/City Centre Patna (2nd nomination)

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

As per the RERA regulation act we have to remove the data regarding the project ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beegeeroy91 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Indian regulation applies to advertising and promoting the project. Wikipedia is not a platform to advertise or market the the mall. It documents topics of general interest and it is not censored. That said, this is a yet-to-be-built mall supported by one citation. Notability per WP:NGEO is a valid question. • Gene93k (talk) 10:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is about an " upcoming mall and multiplex." So, it's WP:TOOSOON to cash that check, fellas. Wait a while. -The Gnome (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Ajf773 (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The project has been abandoned (The souce cited in the article is from 2011). Pratyush (talk) 08:56, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of streets in Crawley and Nedlands[edit]

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

WP:LISTCRUFT and Wikipedia is not a directory. Unsourced OR fails GNG and LISTN ,/INDISCRIMINATE Quek157 (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy procedural close as Keep (at least for now). This is obviously a work in progress. Only AfDed less than 2 hours after it was created. Sure it should have been sandboxed or Drafted first but that is not grounds for deletion. If it ends up looking anything like List of north–south roads in Toronto, or List of streets in Copenhagen, or List of streets in East Perth (same initial author but has taken on a multi-editor life) then it will be referenced, informative, notable, and definitely encyclopedic (and not LISTCRUFT). Aoziwe (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response to below. There are multiple hits in TROVE describing many streets in Perth, their naming and significance. I found these without trying hard. So yes, I respectfully suggest that there is sufficient WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG for this article, potentially even in some cases the individual streets in their own right. This AfD NOM possibly demonstrates a lack of WP:BEFORE. Aoziwe (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

strong opposeI don't see why I need to give that kind of allowance, here is not afc , draft space or what, if you are in mainspace we had to apply mainspace rules. I am saying I want an opinion on whether it is notable or not, no use userify or draftify when it isn't notable. your argument is essentially why other stuff exists. just as how recently we had a list of non American place that have an american place named after it and now the Canadian version is up and debated extensively. no way procedural close and 2 hours, actually it's 20 mins allowance, is only for A7. my first article was taken to A7 in just 3 minutes FYI. This is AFD and author have 7 days min, up to 28 if 4 relists to polish up article. Quek157 (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am saddened to read about your first article. A similar thing happened to me but it survived. "..why I need to give that kind of allowance..", because unless the article is blatant POV or copyright or PROMO or bad BLP, etc., then it would be good to not treat other editors the same way as how you believe you were treated. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this is Afd not csd, the author is not that new and will be given time to improve, in order not to bite I didn't use csd can we have policy based discussion please?Quek157 (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

streets are but is the concept of a list notable? I didn't do before, see my Afd record pleaseQuek157 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC) (moved some comments to the correct place for discussion to flow, see diffs for details --Quek157 (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Despite this being a work in progress it has all the early indications of being an directory. Ajf773 (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT, and this editors other two creations (on streets in suburbs of Perth, Australia) should likely be deleted as well. Wikipedia is a gazetteer, but not to the point of including street directories. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but perhaps put this into a sandbox or draft page until this is referenced and had a lead added. Based on a comment on my talk page, this work is part of a a collaboration between WMAU (Wikimedia Australia) and the Museum of Perth, with a Wikipedian in residence to appear soon. A gazetteer certainly can include lists of streets, and perhaps the list will be limited to important or verifiable streets. A standalone page would be more appropriate than merging into an article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would fully support sending to draft or sandbox. Aoziwe (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:@Graeme Bartlett:, I am fully in support of this but given how bad the conversation above is, and with deletion votes here, we can't do it anymore as it had been to AFD. I don't mind relisting this 4 times to get the article up to shape or closing this as a no consensus default to keep but now we can't do anything already. However, given that draftspace is too much backlog + this user since they can straight bring this to mainspace and if the consensus was that it isn't notable / not directory, we cannot allow it back to AFC where I am afraid that they will just resubmit and clog the log. I will suggest delete with userification (to userspace but after a delete close - then we can G4 if such substandard article came up again) as the best solution. Main framework can be preserved, will not clog up draft space, will never enter into mainspace in such state, when appropriate (like when wikipedian in residence did this up), then resubmit to mainspace. And now 2 days still there is no work on this article. This is clearly A7 met. I hope you get what I am coming from. Alternate ATD can be redirect to the main city first (with the redirect can be resurrected if needed with just an undo).--Quek157 (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep a close look at the related lists shows that this part of an exercise to collaborate information available from the Museum of Perth, in Perth, Western Australia (note not just 'Australia' there are more than one...) - the major project is to compile lists of streets in various parts of Perth, Western Australia. The creators of these lists are new editors (note, less than 100 edits) and are yet to find the under construction, or hangon variety tags to try keep the afd hungry at bay. Speculation and the rest is better left alone at this point. JarrahTree 14:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I know that the creator is unable to defend or even explain the method by which the process of construction of the list entails, and being possibly away from the computer for possibly another 4 days or so, with WP:AGF some of comments above show a lack of understanding of the least that should be expected is for an under construction tag to be respected and understood.JarrahTree 14:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To make it crystal clear I did not tag for AFD with the underconstruction tag, it was added after this AFD started, page history don't lie. 1st edit and the page is started and after 1.5 hours I tagged for AFD, what tag is there??? --Quek157 (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as I said, no objection for 4 relists, you just don't mainspace if unnecessary. the other lists is a little why other stuff exists. my atd offer is most reasonable. speculation goes nowhere, good policies go a far place.And to go to a admin talkpage for the keep can be seen as a canvassing, I just didn't want to point out that bit I have. Every new user can go to AFC and I just help a 2017 Jan rejected draft to meet mainspace today after much work, by all means use the article wizard but here is clearly mainspace. This is clearly better to restart. even if the not is clear, are such list notable based on listn . for under construction tag, onus is not on us to put but why can't people understand this is Afd not csd timing is not important. Another point, the arguments are this I like it so keep, what a common argument .please answer the policy arguments here please and what defending, we don't own articles. come on guys, can we be serious or not here . Quek157 (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDIRECTORY and per WP:LISTN. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- see WP:CSC one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, ... this falls within that where encyclopaedic information exists but not sufficient to warrant individual articles, while for many of the streets individual articles already exist Gnan garra 13:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I don't see much encyclopedic value in having a list of streets. But neither do I see much encyclopedic value in having an article for every station on a rail line or every bus route in a city. And yet, plenty of other people do see such value, especially if (as seems to be the case here) the list will be augmented with historical tidbits. But the article's creator erred in putting this in Main space before it was ready. For what it's worth, I feel the same way about the creator's other recent articles (List of streets in Kings Park and West Perth and List of streets in East Perth). But they're outside the scope of this discussion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:For those who wants draftify keep or whatsoever, do see this highly related Afd Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_non-Canadian_places_that_have_a_Canadian_place_named_after_them and what are the arguments will count or not. Final take AFD is not war zone. --Quek157 (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep noting I'm the initiator of the initiative to work with the Museum of Perth its a significant outreach project culminating in a major exhibition about Wikipedia coinciding with the 2019 ESEAP conference. These are not mere lists of streets, these are about the origins of the origins of streets, the reasons for the choice of names and how they came about. For most of the streets there are third party sources to establish stand alone articles that cover this aspect and much more. For a handful there will be very little 3rd party sourcing, assuming that maps even independently created ones along with multiple documents from colonial(1800-1890's), road boards, local government and state government records are considered primary sources. These roads intertwine with the fabric of a the whole of Perth, they recognise notable people, record Indigenous connections, they map the development of communities, suburbs and towns, they record major events, and provide the link between a suburbs origin and its naming source. Already these link(not yet added, if this AfD calls for it I can throw 65 new editors at it from monday morning expand that group to 300 by the end of the week, conditional on others accepting reposibility to clean any mess made) to 1,000's of articles related to Perth, Western Australia at a level of complexity that makes construction within user space impractical. In the last week we start with skilling just 5 new editors by the end of the month this project will have expanded to 30+ contributors working 100's of topics from buildings, architects, people, Indigenous knowledge, biota and many more. Western Australia is unique in that the development from the first streets to now is well documented as an encyclopaedic topic its an area we have next to no coverage yet the naming and identification of streets is something that impacts every society across the world it how we each find our way home. Yet its a subset of cartography we take for granted, and its holds amazing amount knowledge of whats important to a community. As for the nomination I feel for Quek157 in having their first article deleted within minutes of it being created but that should not be the reason for nominating new articles, these lists meet WP:N collectively as a set they are verifiable across multiple reliable sources. see for Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Western_Australia#Museum_of_Perth for an inital outline of the mechanics of the list creation. Gnan garra 02:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to project-space — "a significant outreach project ... a level of complexity that makes construction within user space impractical" — Perhaps the solution is to create a project space for these pages, similar to what was done for Toodyaypedia stages 2 and 3. Multiple sub-pages can be created under the project, new editors can work on them without having to worry about article-space standards, experienced editors (aware of the project, its methodology and constraints, its use of new editors, etc) can help out if necessary, then when a page is ready it can be moved to article-space. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

fundamentally different subjects the Toodyaypedia stage 3 were not closely related subjects but individual articles who's inclusion was defined by a non-notable arbitrary process purely for maintenance purposes. Gnan garra 04:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. While it's great to see collaboration with the Museum of Perth (who are fantastic!) these lists of suburban streets are completely unencyclopedic and don't belong on Wikipedia. There are so many projects and so many articles in which the museum's expertise would be incredibly valuable - but this is just not a suitable one. All the comments about it being a work in progress fundamentally miss the point: the state of the article is not the problem, the subject is the problem - and it can't be made encyclopedic. Heck, it's better to have this discussion now than after smart newbie editors have wasted days or weeks on it. I really suggest the Perth Wikipedians involved with this one quickly rethink and find a better choice of subject, because otherwise this ill-thought out topic is just going to be an unnecessarily ugly experience for some people it'd be great to have on board. This also applies to all of the other suburban street lists that have been created: please, don't roll out any more. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Road naming in WA is subject to Land Administration Act 1997, Land Information Authority Regulations 2007, Australian Standard AS/NZS 4819:2011 they are also subject various other piece of legislation. Its an important part of Urban planning and a major feature of cartography. Add to that each name is subject to various additional regulations from Emergency service acts and Indigenous culture and heritage acts, each name goes through 7 different consultation processes. It is a very encyclopaedic topic as explained previously because it reflects many differing aspects of a community as it develops over time, a list article is a way to bring all of these elements into one place. Gnan garra 12:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A decision falling under lots of pieces of legislation is not remotely an argument for it being encyclopedic: by that logic, every suburban house is notable since lots of acts applied to their construction. If all you can find about a street is that it exists or if you're very lucky where its name came from, it just isn't notable and any claims of reflecting "many differing aspects of a community" are just hyperbolic. Perhaps, as I think Mitch suggested on one of the talk pages, one overarching article might be able to fulfill that role in an encyclopedic way, assuming sources for that in fact exist. None of these suburban street lists actually pass notability guidelines beyond demonstrating that these streets exist and have names: the sources to demonstrate notability simply don't exist. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... as I think Mitch suggested on one of the talk pages ... - here. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list falls squarely within Wikipedia's gazetteer function. It needs to be properly referenced, not deleted. References for most of the streets that would ultimately be named in it are available in an appendix to Williams, AE (1984) Nedlands: From Campsite to City Nedlands: City of Nedlands, which, according to Worldcat, is held by the City of Perth library and State Library of WA. Someone from the Museum of Perth should borrow the book and use it to reference the list. Further, some of the streets could be linked to the article about the subjects of the relevant origin of the relevant name, eg Birdwood Parade and Throssell Street. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

some of the streets could be linked to the article about the subjects of the relevant origin of the relevant name — I've been doing that, admittedly ad hoc, on this and similar articles. Examples: [18][19][20][21]. I'm sure I or someone else will finish the job at some point. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since people are still arguing for a keep without any good arguments, I will put forth one more, forget about sourcing, even sourced properly all the roads and information, it will be a SYNTH. Still cannot escape delete. Delete this, userify to an editor with good standing (but there aren't much information) if needed. --Quek157 (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surely adding a street directory (one that includes suburb boundaries),and/or Landgate Map Viewer, as a reference would negate any claim of SYNTH. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're reliant on a street directory as a source, I would say this mounts an incredibly strong argument for non-notability. There are millions of streets around the world, which is why no one to my knowledge has ever before tried to argue inherent notability for them: why are streets in this handful of suburbs uniquely notable because a couple of editors are personally interested in them? The sourcing certainly isn't any superior to any other average batch of streets in any suburb anywhere else in the world. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was not suggesting that a street directory was evidence of notability (my post makes no claim as to notability); I was pointing out that a list of streets in a suburb is not synthesis, because there are reliable sources that provide that information without having to "reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Mitch Ames (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not merely a list of street names, it covers when they were built, how they were named, if they have ever had a name change, plus other aspects like change in alignment, closures, creation of pedestrian malls, why behind the names. Its not a synth as each street is within a clearly defined subset related to notable topics each is verifiable through multiple sources together they form level of knowledge that s creates an understanding of the subject as a whole. Gnan garra 04:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is when a random suburban street was built and what it was named after notable enough for an article? Average suburban streets rarely (never) change alignment, get turned into pedestrial malls, get closed, or anything other than exist, which is why these suburban articles flounder so much more than the CBD ones. Beyond that, it mightn't be a case of WP:SYNTH, but it's definitely a seething mess of WP:OR: the very first one has five different editorial theories about the naming of a road, the only source-of-sorts being an archival document. Even the reference list that is there is highly questionable: for instance, this 1933 ad to sell a house being used to reference that the street is in its suburb seems just designed to make the list of newspaper sources look longer. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you're doing is advocating the deletion of an article that hasn't even been created. This is not an article about an individual street. It's a list of streets in a group of notable suburbs. In any case, according to Wikipedia:Notability (highways)#Australia, "There is [sic] no absolute rules for notability that are adhered to for Australian roads." You could liken this list to a list of international centuries scored by a notable cricketer (eg a cricketer who has played in at least one test match). Lots of such lists have been created in Wikipedia, and some of them are even featured lists (eg List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar). Why should a list of streets in a notable suburb be treated any differently if the information in the list is derived from reliable sources? Bahnfrend (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The quote you are quoting is from a page tagged with "It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." --Quek157 (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was advocating the deletion of this article, because a list of non-notable streets in a random suburban area is inherently non-notable. The notability comparison to a list of performances of one of the most famous cricketers in history is so absurd it doesn't bother further response. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "random suburban area" at all, and you're not following the applicable guidelines in your comments about the list. According to WP:NOTESAL, "... One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable ..." See also WP:CSC: "... one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles ..." And the list is not a SYNTH either. As I have indicated above, the City of Nedlands published a history book as long ago as 1984 in which a whole appendix was devoted to a list of all of the streets in the City of Nedlands and the provision of information about the origins of all of their names (ie encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles). Supplementary information about those streets is also available from other sources, eg similar lists that have been published elsewhere from time to time. You might think that such information is not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, but people who live in Perth are likely to disagree, and Perth is a big city, not a village. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as Quek157 was blocked this am, I believe that the confused and somewhat odd material left here by the blocked user might need to be taken into account of any closing editor/admin.

For procedural and generally accepted practices on wikipedia, I trust other editors are able to take into account the loss of the nominator, and any relevant questions might be best served by closing this AFD and re-listing (if a new nominator so chooses.)

Otherwise the reading of the above discussion needs to be particularly considered and very carefully, so that whatever eventuates may take into account any bias towards the nominators original nomination, and subsequent conversation. Noting the now (almost disappeared) closed ANI report [22] may possibly be interpreted as regarding the blocked users understanding (or lack of it) of procedures relative to AFD and related issues. JarrahTree 06:43, 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 keep. Other than one delete !vote provided with no clear explanation or reasoning, consensus is unanimous and strong to keep. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raquel Ochoa[edit]

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

Subject has received one apparently non-notable award (which was named after a notable person). The link to the reference verifying this award, however, is nowhere to be found. Having publications does not make the author notable. The Portuguese article has no additional sources in it. If kept, the article should probably be trimmed down to what is known about her from reliable published sources (if any exist). A Google search shows this Wikipedia article and the Portuguese one followed by hits like Facebook and Linkedin and then Whitepages and Spokeo listings along with other people with the same name. A loose noose (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to being a notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The prize she won was presented by the president of the country [23] and covered by at least two major newspapers [24] [25] [26]. This magazine profile looks in-depth and reliable. There's enough of a language barrier here to make it difficult for me to sift out reliably-published reviews of her other books from the usual books-for-sale web sites, but I suspect they exist as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The prize she won is certainly highly respected in Portugal. She has been the subject of several reports in national Portuguese newspapers and there are at least two extensive interviews with her in Portuguese which can be accessed on the web.--Ipigott (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She is an award winning author and there is extensive coverage of her in Portuguese press and meets the notability requirements. The article seems to have been largerly translated from the Portuguese entry which is where I think the dead link comes from. I will change the reference article about her winning the award from Público.Million_Moments (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others: article needs work, but subject appears to meet the notability requirements. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, debate !votes possibly due to WP:BIAS, intentional or not. Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meet GNG. Multiple RS available in Portuguese as cited by David Eppstein, as well as [27], [28], [29], [30]. Sourcing in English is not a requirement for WP. SusunW (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She is a well known person in literary world and also an award winning author. Therefore the article passes notability guidelines. Abishe (talk) 06:09, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go! (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND – Lionel^(talk) 08:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot seem to find any reliable coverage that satisfies GNG. The albums and EPs also do not have any substantial reviews to work off of to create a worthwhile encyclopedic article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:21, 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 delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of lands at Six Flags theme parks[edit]

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

Unsourced, original research and WP:FANCRUFT Ajf773 (talk) 06:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Information about the subdivided parks is available in each park article. It's pretty useless to have them sorted globally. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:LISTCRUFT Acnetj (talk) 06:43, 30 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)} 18:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rita de Candia[edit]

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

This appears to be an elaborate hoax. There was a real person named Rita de Candia, and the information about her family is correct, but I could not verify any of the other claims the article makes about her. There is no mention of her in any of the references given in the article with the exception of the first one which simply lists her birth. The claim that she was the inspiration for Sally Bowles is blatantly untrue; Bowles was in fact based on Jean Ross.

I searched for reliable sources regarding de Candia's life and found only [31], which states that she was sent to prison for indebtedness. Given the blatant factual errors in the article and the lack of reliable sources, I am inclined to believe that this article constitutes a hoax. CataracticPlanets (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same conclusions as CataracticPlanets. Note that even the photograph description is probably an invention, the desc on commons only say "unknown woman": this is typical of this "Candia/Levieux" hoax.--Phso2 (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Within the previous twelve months, the creator of the article, Charito2000, has also posted up three other, similarly themed ones: Pelegrina Pastorino, Robert Tracy (dancer), and Godfrey Robarts Pearse. They do not seem to be hoaxes. The image of a woman with a nude man in a studio appears also in Ernst Ludwig Kirchner. -The Gnome (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The photo description says "An unknown woman in white and the naked dancer Hugo Biallowons (1879-1916) occupy the foreground." Article Godfrey Robarts Pearse doesn't provide any verifiable source, and simple google search doesn't give any useful answer. Everything this vandal writes is not an hoax, but a large part is, and the rest is often very dubious. I couldn't find a mention of Pelegrina Pastorino in the references given in her article, which doesn't mean she doesn't exist, but this is very problematic (see also the google search...); note that the 2 first pictures in Pastorino article were uploaded by a sockpuppet of Charito, and the third's origin in not verifiable.--Phso2 (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is quite interesting. If what you say turns out to be correct, then people have even more more weird ways of passing their time than what I knew so far. -The Gnome (talk) 07:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After a bit more research, it seems to me we might be dealing with a case of narcissistic mythomania. -The Gnome (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is probably more a psychological problem than "nasty" vandalism. Here is a little collection of some examples and ip/accounts that can give an general idea of the problem and of the pattern of contributions (by checking the global contributions, because of the cross-wiki factor).--Phso2 (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sufficient sources to pass verifiability tests.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since, after sleuthing it for a while, no N-supporting material was tracked down. (In fact, not even V-supporting material.) The subject has probably fewer claims on notability than a fictional character. -The Gnome (talk) 08:22, 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 merge to Israeli Pro Wrestling Association. A Train^talk 19:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IPWA Heavyweight Championship (Israel)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Standard practice on these professional wrestling championship articles is to split them off from the promotion's article once it reaches a number of champions that makes it too large of a table for the promotion article. That is why it was appropriately split from Israeli Pro Wrestling Association. Why the nominator would consider a pure deletion rather than proposing a merge makes no sense as well. - Galatz ^Talk 11:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Israeli Pro Wrestling Association. I'm not convinced there's enough here to be split into its own article, but as Galatz said, it definitely shouldn't be deleted outright. Smartyllama (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete - As much as it might be standard practice to split an article regarding the title, that only holds true if the title in question is notable. I'd argue that notion Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Promotion's article is not large enough to justify spinning off a list for the title. Nikki♥311 08:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not independently notable, can be contained on mother article.LM2000 (talk) 07:12, 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 keep. Consensus here is that the topic is notable, even if the article needs to be cleaned up. Discussion on any name change can continue on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal rock throwing[edit]

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

Synthetic collection of non-encyclopedic incidents. Almost every single source in this article (maybe about 70 out of about 77) is from an everyday news incident, most with no broad or long-term analysis other than that synthesized by user E.M. Gregory. When the article says that rock throwing "could be" a felony or that someone "could serve 14 years" for it, it means that Gregory has found a local news article where someone was charged with a felony or sentenced to 14 years for it, not that it's even necessarily a specially enumerated crime in the jurisdiction mentioned.

E.M. Gregory is a longtime disruptive user in the I/P topic (see Palestinian stone throwing, the article that started it all) who really wants to make "fetch" happen, and isn't worried about pesky things like WP:OR or WP:POINT for it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. I suggest the personal attacks in the nom be struck. While some aspects of the article may be improved - criminal (or violent? whatever form of rock throwing which is not for play) rock throwing, as a world wide topic is clearly notable. The subject is clearly notable in even a cursory before - e.g. google books "rock throwing" criminal" has many relevant hits. I would question whether this article should also include rock throwing in a combat context - e.g. this Routlege book has a chapter on rock throwing in combat in Roman times - but whether this is all violent rock throwing or just violent criminal rock throwing - it is clearly notable.Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although the title must change per WP:COMMONNAME, deleting the word "criminal." The current title smells of bias as regards the Middle East conflict. Throwing rocks at someone or something is always done with the intent to do harm. There is no such thing as friendly rock throwing or innocent rock throwing. And the verbiage about laws in various countries against rock throwing reads like an exercise in triviality. Are there any countries in the world that do not punish rock throwers? Plus, a section about rock throwing as a means of defense rather than assault is lacking, though far from surprisingly.

David, got any comments, baby? -The Gnome (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rocks thrown in combat - e.g. this Routlege book - would not be criminal (just as killing an enemy soldier, in combat, is not murder) - I could see how rock throwing (crime) could be separate from combat - but I agree it might be just for the best to cover rock throwing (or violent rock throwing? You do need to separate from Stone skipping and other forms of rock throwing not intended to do harm) in general and not just from a legal perspective.Icewhiz (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steinstossen, Stone put, someone should create Tibetan stone throwing.[32]. There is indeed "such thing as friendly rock throwing or innocent rock throwing," an old-timey sport from which the title of this article needed to be differentiated. In addition to the criminal behavior of idle youth throwing rocks people driving on highways, this is an article about criminal rock throwing with political intent: in riots, at tense international borders, and by political movements (Stone pelting in Kashmir.) Dozens of articles about such events have been linked to this one. I can see moving it to rock throwing (crime), if other editors regard that as better form.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to introduce athletics now into the discussion? This is getting hilarious, honestly. Funny but we never tried to introduce similar nonsense about guns, for example. Perhaps we have to make sure Wikipedia users understand the difference between firing a gun at a police officer and firing a gun as part of an Olympic event. Huge gap in Wikipedia this.

-The Gnome (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except for specifically forbidden weapons, such as poisonous gas, all else used in combat, including stone throwing is not criminal. But I won't be dragged into a discussion about legitimate use of force in war; I'd consider such mush to be a waste of time in the times we live in. As to skipping and throwing, they are entirely different practices; all their articles need is a "for/see" top hat. -The Gnome (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Criminal rock throwing" is limited to peacetime by definition. If a soldier in a regular army were to be ordered to throw rocks (editor trying to imagine the point of ordering a platoon to throw rocks at a Super Hornet,) it would not be a criminal act.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More disingenuous arguments. In reality, throughout the history of human warfare, stones have been used in combat, and routinely too. Bring on yer ballistas, mangonels, and catapults! It's brush up time, soldier!

Yes, rocks against a Hornet aircraft, I'd say no (except as a symbolic or maybe pathetic act of desperation; I have the images), but when doing siege against any of myriads of cities pre-gunpowder you sure need to throw rocks, stones, plinths, and ehven.

Now a I am curious. Those dudes who threw rocks at a Hornet, they were members of the official military of a recognized state?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they were all elite commandos of the Eskimo state. I mean, they must've been since, as we all know, the so-called Palestinians, do not really exist. -The Gnome (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting the word "criminal" in the title, as you did soon after putting the article up, is simply part of the agenda of some editors to introduce in Wikipedia a slanted view of Palestinian resistance. Or maybe their mission (old timers cannot forget this, this, etc). It's a redundant word. It only serves to take the focus away from the causes of Palestinian rock throwing and towards strictly the criminal aspect of rock throwing. We know from official history that, for example, even hunger strikes by arrested resisters have been officially labeled "terrorist acts" by Israel in the past. Perhaps, we should introduce the word "criminal" to that article too.

Or, better yet, perhaps some people need to own up and examine History a bit more critically and somberly. And learn, for instance, a few things about the honorable history of Jewish rock throwing.

In the middle of the neighborhood

The barricade stands

Nobody stays in the room

The police pass by running

Children throw stones onto the street.

That's Jewish children in Lodz in the 1920s. (See here.) Now, where's that boy David when I call 'im? Gonna whip 'is ass, when I see 'im. -The Gnome (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF. As the edit record will show, I created the page a "rock throwing" and a few seconds later move it to "criminal rock throwing." This is the easiest way to create a redirect when creating an article on a topic with more than on COMMON name. You create under one name, and redirect to the name you prefer, in this case, for reasons of specificity.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Why don't you just create the page under the most appropriate name and then create redirects as needed? Natureium (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article isn't well-written but deletion is not cleanup. I hate invoking that because it promotes poor effort and sourcing, but the topic is certainly discussed thoroughly in much better sources than what were chosen; the time really should have been taken to create a comprehensive article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:Deletion is not cleanup is an essay, just as WP:TNT is. Natureium (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:DINC. Furthermore, nomination is defective, as it consists largely of a personal attack on EM Greg. Nominator ought to be sanctioned by default. XavierItzm (talk) 05:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's doubtful the contested article will be taken down. It's also doubtful, though not so much (Rod knows), that the nominator will be sanctioned. But the article will most certainly be improved, in that it'll be expanded in both scope and depth. No doubt about it. -The Gnome (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Deletion is not cleanup but the article doesn't make a case for this being a topic at all, outside of the I/P conflict where there's already a specific sub-article (which I voted to keep when it was at AFD). EMG seems to be admitting right in this discussion (16:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)) that this article synthesizes a connection between pranks and political activity. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No "pranks" are covered in the article, which is about the crime of rock throwing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I will not comment on other irrelevant issues related to the article raised in the AfD. There are many different aspects to rock throwing. There are religious events like Stoning of the Devil, there are sports like Steinstossen, Stone put. But the sports are one-by-one person thing. Where as using rock throwing in combat, killing somebody by stones as punishment, stoning the devil are a "mob thing". The subject of the article deserves as article. Not sure about the current title though. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The article does need cleanup, as it contains sections such as "Selected deaths and injuries". wumbolo ^^^ 19:00, 30 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. A Train^talk 19:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great Northern Exhibition[edit]

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

Article about an annual event, not referenced well enough to clear our notability standards for annual events. The only "reference" cited here is the event's own self-published history of itself, not a reliable source that's independent of the event organizers, so the existence of the book is not a WP:GNG pass all by itself in the absence of any other sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination assesses notability based on sourcing in the article. It's immaterial whether sources that establish notability are referenced in the article, other than that if they are referenced in the article, then it's easy for readers to find and evaluate them. Largoplazo (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator is assessing notability based on how Wikipedia notability works. Notability is not independent of sourceability — and it is not immaterial whether sources that establish notability are referenced in the article. An article without sources can be kept if better sources can actually be found to salvage it with, but is most certainly not exempted from ever having to have sources added to it if they can't — but I have looked, and did not find any evidence of the depth and range of sourcing it would take to get something like this into Wikipedia: it would have to pass WP:AUD, on sourceability to more than just local coverage in its own area, and I can't find any evidence of the kind of wider coverage that it takes. Bearcat (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability is not independent of sourceability": that's what I said; but sourceability ≠ sources in article, and your nomination as stated was based on the latter. As for "... and it is not immaterial whether sources that establish notability are reference in the article": False. See WP:Notability#Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Further WP:BEFORE calls for a search of one's own for sources before nominating an article for deletion for a lack of notability. If they do exist, then the editor may

add some to the article;
add appropriate maintenance tags to the article;
if the article is already tagged, then leave the tags there until someone does make the effort to improve the article.

Deleting the article in that case isn't appropriate. What would the deletion rationale look like? "I found sources that demonstrate notability, but they aren't in the article, so the article qualifies for deletion because I didn't have time to add them"? That wouldn't go over well.

And now you say you did do your own search. If you mean that you did that before nominating the article, then you ought to have said so in your nomination. I don't know why someone having a sound rationale for nominating an article for deletion would write up a rationale that isn't sound. The point of the nomination is to make one's case for deletion. Why make a bad case when you have a good case to make? Of course other editors are going to question an invalid rationale.

As for the remainder of your remarks to me: I wasn't arguing that this topic is notable, so I don't need to address them; they sound like you have now conducted due diligence, whether it was before your nomination or after I'd commented. Largoplazo (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not generally considered necessary, or even useful, for an AFD nominator to provide a complete summary of every individual step they took to determine whether the article was salvageable to outside sourcing or not — doing that would, in most cases, make the nomination statement so TLDR that nobody else would be arsed to participate at all. There have certainly been cases where it was obvious that the nominator even try, usually because they nominated a no-brainer notable like Justin Trudeau or Donald Trump — but normally, there's no value in the nominator listing every individual bit of WP:BEFORE that they actually did, and even less value in attacking the nominator for not listing all the BEFORE that they didn't have to list. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:15, 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. A Train^talk 19:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Hallman[edit]

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

Poorly referenced article about a lacrosse player of uncertain notability. WP:NATHLETE lists no specific "automatic inclusion" criteria for lacrosse players at all, so I can only judge this against whether he clears WP:GNG or not -- but the only two references here are both primary sources published by directly affiliated teams and leagues, not reliable source coverage about him in media. And the creator's username was "Braves01", while the subject has been associated with a team called the Braves, so there was a probable conflict of interest. Bearcat (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, it's tenuous but there seem to be a handful of articles floating around, referenced or not (e.g.).- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One local newspaper article in his team's own local media market is not enough to get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Simply being a fan of a team the subject plays for does not violate WP:COI. We all write about topics we're interested in. Unless there's evidence creator actually worked for the team, I'm not seeing any violation there. I remind nominator to assume good faith before making accusations like that. Smartyllama (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a total lack of the substantial coverage that is needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did not find the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG and I don't see any SNG that he meets. Papaursa (talk) 04:02, 31 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. Not the best argued AfD we've ever had but the keep arguments are ultimately insufficient for a BLP. A Train^talk 19:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Ambani[edit]

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

Why is this person notable? Norcaes (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy - fails WP:NBIO. May be a case of WP:G11. Kirbanzo (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to understand why this individual deserves a Wikipedia page. First, the article introduces him as the chief of strategy of a new telecom company. When even Verizon's chief of strategy doesn't have or warrant a Wikipedia page yet, I can't imagine why Mr. Ambani does. His next point of 'notability' is that he is the son of a billionaire industrialist. Again, this does not warrant a Wikipedia page. Next, we move on to the section about his 'Business Career' which consists of an indirect quote about his views on the telecom company he works at, followed by a few rudimentary and irrelevant points about the firm and its launch party with a Bollywood star. There's an uncited mention of his co-ownership of a major cricket team (possibly by virtue of his family owning it). We then move on to a larger section about his 'Personal Life' which provides an account of his high school and undergraduate education, his support of Arsenal FC, his family, and his recent engagement. In all this, I can't find a single substantial point that fulfills Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Norcaes (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - fails WP:A7 as well as WP:G11 after closer examination. Kirbanzo (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing notable about this person even with all the sources provided. Ajf773 (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He does not even have officer in his title, not even close to being notable. OK, this is more a backhanded comment on the proliferation of COO, CIO, CISO and on and on titles than anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Hi All! I believe that merely basing the discussion on the content only present on the article right now is not fair. A quick Google search tells me that he passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG through substantial mentions in a lot of verifiable publications, Entrepreneur, for instance, and others already on the page. GQ, who also featured him in a cover story, called him "India's most influential young Indians" in 2017 (here) while he is also credited for M&As and new ventures at his organization. He has also received coverage where the company he is heading strategy for, Jio has been in the news such as acquiring a music streaming system to create the largest streaming company in the subcontinent (here) and venturing into blockchain (bit speculative: this and this). These are just some things that I found within a few minutes on Google search and as such he is definitely notable. Lastly, I also believe he satisfies WP:CCS through lines mentioned in the GQ and Entrepreneur articles. Some of these include - "man behind Reliance’s open office culture and open collaboration framework" (Entrepreneur) and "Ambani helped grow an initial 60-person team to a 17,000-strong workforce, achieving the goal of 100 million subscribers in just 170 days" (GQ). I strongly support keeping this page and do not agree with its deletion FlyingBlueDream (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi FlyingBlueDream, thank you for joining the discussion. I'm glad we can all (so far) seem to agree that the article in its present state doesn't deserve a presence on Wikipedia. I'd like to address your points one at a time:

1. My quick Google search did not show up anything that warranted a Wikipedia page; in fact, I reached the sixth page of the search results before finding coverage (on a website called 'moneycontrol.com', which happens to be owned by Reliance, his father's company) that did not involve his and his sister's recent engagements or coverage in the context of his father, and as you know, notability is not inherited and Wikipedia is host to neither gossip nor breaking news.

2. The headline of the article in the Entrepreneur article is 'Here's What Heir to India's Richest Man Said at His Maiden Speech', which I'm not sure would convince everyone here about its validity as evidence of independent notability.

3. Since you mention the sources already in the article, it's worth pointing out that all the articles cited are in the primary context of his relation to his father, except for two articles by The Economic Times: 'Here's what made Akash Ambani fall in love with football' (which is hardly relevant) and a joint interview with his sister as senior employees of a company owned by their father. I'm not entirely sure the latter is a good source because it has indirect references to their father's wealth, their "style quotient", and the family's "private jet" but I can understand if someone else disagrees with that.

4. The link to the GQ article you mentioned features his name as part of a sublist of four, out of which two people do not seem to have warranted their own articles, therefore, I would agree that it's a valid source, but not enough to warrant an article on its own merit.

5. There's no doubt that Jio has been in the news but the question at hand is whether or not Mr. Ambani has received enough sustained coverage for non-trivial activities that warrant a Wikipedia page. Any further concrete evidence of that would be appreciated. It's important to distinguish coverage of Mr. Ambani from coverage of Jio, and I believe some of your citations mistake the latter for the former.

6. The two articles you mentioned in the context of Jio launching digital currencies both refer to a report by a website called Livemint, which fails to serve as a good source because (a) WP:CRYSTALBALL (b) WP:GNG requires a topic to have "...received significant coverage in reliable sources..." and Mr. Ambani is referred to all of once outside the context of his father within the article in question.

For the reasons above, I maintain my stand of delete. Norcaes (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continued discussion —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 07:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Hi Norcaes, thank you for your comments. I am happy to discuss the points made by you in relation to this article’s deletion. I have responded to the points you have made individually.

1. I believe one of the reasons why the search results seen talk about his marriage is due to the freshness of the story and the fact that this has been widely reported as both, an item of news and gossip across a multitude of platforms. Google prioritizes recent events and trending topics, which is why the results appear that way. Unlike in Wikipedia (and rightly so), breaking news and freshness of topics are key parameters based on which search engines display the results we observe. This factor I believe does in no way diminish his notability

2. I am curious as to why this article does not convince you of his notability. The entire piece talks about Akash Ambani and is an independent publication talking in detail about said individual. Moreover, the publication in question is definitely one with considerable authority and renown

3. I disagree with your premise here that the article text mainly talks about his relationship with this father as being the most pivotal note to warrant coverage on him. I simply think that’s some contextual relevance that comes up because Mukesh Ambani is India’s richest man. This is not too dissimilar to content about Amit Bhatia where you will invariably have a mention of his relationship with Lakshmi Mittal (just an example)

4. The GQ article is a detailed profile on him, covering both his work and personal aspects. It has highlighted facts right from the results achieved by the project he has had a part to play in to certain personal tastes. That being said, it is part of a wider range of online coverage received by him through the last few years. Additionally, while you mention the some individuals profiled in the same article do not have Wikipedia pages, others such as Roshni Nadar and Pirojsha Adi Godrej do

5. He absolutely has received enough coverage for non-trivial items. Because he is involved on the business side of things related to several things under the reliance umbrella, businesses and other aspects associated with the same will invariably receive some coverage in articles that talk about him. That being said, there is enough information about him or his role within the functioning of a particular entity

6. Livemint is a widely read newspaper in India and is very much a presence in the mainstream coverage of the financial markets. Hence, I disagree with your argument of having a citation that has ‘received significant coverage in reliable sources’ in this case

Apart from this, there are also places where he has received coverage, an example of this is India Today and also the cover of Hello! in the recent past. For these reasons, I do think that we should retain the page and continue to make edits so that is in much better shape than its present form. FlyingBlueDream (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi again, FlyingBlueDream. If I may comment on the new references, I'd like to point out that (1) the India Today article is a Top 20 list called 'The Inheritors', which makes it difficult to use as source establishing his independent notability (2) the link to 'Hello! India' isn't a link to the article itself so I can't comment on its content, since a celebrity magazine might not focus on his business career. As for your other points:

1. While I agree that recent events do receive more coverage, I don't know if we can give the topic (Mr. Ambani) the benefit of doubt here. For example, despite the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal that's made headlines everywhere, you wouldn't have to scroll past the third result for 'Mark Zuckerberg' (let alone six pages, as in the case of Mr. Ambani) before finding an article or webpage unrelated to the event. Therefore, we can conclude that a major part of Mr. Zuckerberg's notability does not come from recent events. I don't believe the same can be said about Mr. Ambani.

2. My problem with the piece is that it covers an event (a member of India's richest family makes his first public speech) and developments in Jio's operations. It is not coverage of Mr. Ambani, he appears to be a instrument for communicating developments in Jio.

3. After re-reading the article, I'm unconvinced that his family relationships are not a primary context in the coverage, but I can understand that you may disagree. While I hadn't heard of Amit Bhatia before your example, his Wiki page has cited references to an established career in investment that preceded and was independent of his new family's business. The same can't be said for Mr. Ambani.

4. While I followed your link to the GQ article, I'm no longer sure we're looking at the same webpage. The link takes me to a short list, not a profile. Plus, the individuals you mentioned have some impressive credentials far beyond recognition in a lifestyle magazine: Ms. Nadar is 57th on a Forbes list of the most powerful women in the world, and Mr. Godrej has multiple other awards to his name, in addition to forming partnerships with the Clinton Foundation, as well as a short stint in government. I'd have to disagree with suggestions that Mr. Ambani has attained a comparable level of accomplishment.

5. "Enough information" about his role in an entity cannot be a sufficient criterion to warrant an encyclopedic article. If that were the case, Wikipedia would be filled with articles on senior employees of Fortune 500 companies.

6. I didn't mean to imply that the article was a bad source by virtue of its publisher; I believe the article itself isn't a good reference for justifying an article on Mr. Ambani because of the two reasons I mentioned previously.

I respect your suggestion to retain and improve the article, it's a productive outlook. However, I made and maintain my stance of delete because I believe that, at present, the topic does not have sufficient notability, and it is simply WP:TOOSOON to feature an article on Mr. Ambani. If he achieves sufficient independent notability in the future, we would not have lost much by deleting this article, except some tidbits on his personal life. Norcaes (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment Hi Norcaes, If we were to look beyond the barrage of stories that specifically talk about his recently announced engagement, there is indeed widespread notable coverage that the individual in question has received over the past few years. If a personality has received coverage for a wide number of reasons (topics), be it for being an "instrument for communicating developments in a company," or as a director of three firms or as someone who the media pays attention when he's speaking or speculating, I'm convinced (with a reinforced energy) that Mr. Ambani does warrant a page for himself on Wikipedia. Therefore, even I'm glad we can all (so far) seem to agree that the article in a refined state (with all the newly found sources) does deserve a presence on Wikipedia.

In the articles that have been brought up, I am not just referring the content by merely skimming the title. There is enough content inside (independent of Mr. Ambani - where he has been credited with building a team, redefining office culture, and spearheading an organization that is currently in the limelight. I know notability is not inherited, but after going through all these articles, I believe the sources talk about Mr. Ambani's actions as resultants for Jio and other ventures and not the other way around. There are also "multiple credible claims of significance" in both the Entrepreneur and GQ article. Don't just take these articles individually - I'm talking about combining their power to establish notability, which is where I would like to reiterate that the subject passes WP:GNG. You also brought up Mark Zuckerberg and the coverage he has on the mainstream media. I simply think that the degree of coverage is not something we can compare since these are two individuals in different geographies and have completely different roles within the business ecosystem in which they operate. Also, I do not think that comparing two individuals in terms of their notability where one has more presence across the mainstream media is grounds to render the presence of the other individual in this comparison moot.

As for the coverage, GNG states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" which is where I would like to disagree with you when you say that "whether or not Mr. Ambani has received enough sustained coverage for non-trivial activities". I am not mistaken; these articles also talk about Mr. Ambani's efforts. Of course, he is closely associated with Jio, so an article cannot be entirely about pomp and circumstancing a person. It has to take a blanket, journalistic approach. You might be talking about editorials, and per GNG, they are not to be trusted much.

The only reason I redirected you to those cover editions are to signify that there have been detailed interviews and feature stories of Mr. Ambani, which again, combined with all the references that we could together find, reinforces my stand for the article's sustenance. You mentioned that the GQ article is only a snippet; that's because it requires a subscription for full access. Just because an article is not freely available does not mean the content cannot be cited to establish or help in establishing a point. Nor does it impact its reliability per WP:RSC. If I were to take one point from that story, I would go back and refer to this line alone - "Ambani helped grow an initial 60-person team to a 17,000-strong workforce, achieving the goal of 100 million subscribers in just 170 days". There is no implication about his inheritance/family tie or anything about his glamourous life. WP:TOOSOON would have been the case had Mr. Ambani still been perceived as someone who is just interested in football, but the current scenario tells me that his actions (both in his personal capacity as well as a professional) are of universal interest.

Another reason for sustained and sufficient coverage is that these sources are only English publications. India being a multilingual country, its media scope is wide. In my research, I have also found sources in vernacular languages. Publications like Zeebiz, Jagran, Lokmat, ABP Live (which again are independent of the English ones above) are few such sources that have also covered him AND his company together. I'm sure you will be able to see where I'm coming from when I say and close that Mr. Ambani passes GNG and has received wide, not just sufficient, and sustained coverage ever since he has been in the business. Not to mention I don't know how WP:G11 is applicable to the article even in its current state. It, as I have argued above, passes WP:A7. I reiterate that the article should be kept and be expanded to the community's best abilities. FlyingBlueDream (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for the fruitful discussion, FlyingBlueDream. After reading your argument, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on Mr. Ambani's independent notability, but I hope our comments can help other editors make an informed decision. Have a great week. Norcaes (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Not seeing any in-depth third-party sourcing sufficient to establish independent notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - Co-owner of an IPL team, has a say in auctions and strategy; leads another organization; has wide coverage, and is a topic of interest among Indians to say the least. Easily passes WP:GNG. Needs expansion and improvement with available sources. 42.107.129.79 (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notable business personality with heavy coverage in Indian publications as far as I can see. As mentioned above by others, he is involved in sports and business fields. Passes the general criteria if the inheritance part is left out. Also, I think we should look at building Wikipedia here rather than removing valid content at the whiff of presumed limited importance, especially when it’s about biographies. I have been noticing this in a lot of articles recently. Thank you. Gaurav.jhala88 (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Per Norcaes.NOTINHERITED and TOOSOON.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Marvellous Spider-Man 07:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-If he is notable then by the same logic I am notable(Which I am not) =>He is not notable ...WP:NOTINHERIT — F R ⁺ 11:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like promotionalHeshiv (talk) 10:24, 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 no consensus. One full calendar month of discussion, three relists, and only one full-throated argument to delete. There's no real urgency on the part of the community to delete this article. A Train^talk 19:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COSCO fleet lists[edit]

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

Non encyclopedic fancruft. PROD was added in 2017 for the reasons being 'No value is added to an encyclopedia by inclusion of a list that is already available from the subject's own website. This article is correct only on the day published. It will require substantial maintenance, likely by hand, which is likely to fall further and further into disrepair' and subsequently removed by its author Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not following etiquette on PROD. The original proposer said I could remove it if I disagreed so I did. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just commenting. there's no rule to proscribe the author of article to remove prod label. However, it'll be good if you inform the person who tagged it. The next step will naturally be an Afd. Quek157 (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, the information, as presented, is not available from the company website(s). All current information on Wkipedia is liable to fall behind, such as lists of cruise company ships, naval vessels, various statistics on geographical pages and so on. It is in the nature of Wikipedia. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've not yet checked for notability etc, but that the information is accessible from the COSCO's own website doesn't mean it can't be listed here. That argument would undermine probably a majority of "lists of Xs". Lists that couldn't be kept anywhere near up to date might not deserve presence, but I wouldn't say it serves in this, or even most, instances. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Standalone fleet lists should present more information than mere vessels names and types. The vast majority of these have no articles of their own but some do, suggesting that there may be enough for future re-moving to main space. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was, originally, going to add them to the main COSCO shipping page but was mindful of the caution about overwhelming the main page. I'm quite happy to move them there if that is deemed preferable. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Murgatroyd49: I wasn't sure whether you meant now (in which case, please don't while we are discussing) or just as a "if that's what people want" - apologies if needlessly making sure. I believe you are right that it doesn't belong on the COSCO page.Nosebagbear (talk)

For clarification, if that's what people want. Certainly won't do anything until concensus is reached. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Set of Comments: @Ajf773: - "already available from the subject's own website", data that was already available from a company's own site is distinctly shaky grounds to remove something. If there is a specific point on this, then that might justify it (and perhaps there is) but worth linking to. "This article is correct only on the day published." - that something might fall into disrepair definitely isn't grounds to delete something.

Eggishorn's point about too little information being contained on the list - presumably an argument of a failure to meet Wiki's quality standards/Incubation I wouldn't say matches what we see in most of its counterparts. Now while of course WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is there, List of ships built by John Brown & Company sets the lowest level possible (I would say this actually needs modifying, but here for comparison), but quite a few of the other Lists of ships have equivalent information. This (and they) have more data than "mere vessels names and types" - certainly enough to meet the minimum quality standards. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an example the fleet list at Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, for a long time, had less information than the COSCO list, I've been slowly filling it out as and when the urge takes me. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - re my earlier comments, I think the only functional argument is notability. Now this would seem to either require a significant amount of sources each covering some ships to "manually" put the list together, or a significant overall list. Clearly the latter is easy to find as OR, but rarer to come across as a sufficient and suitable secondary source. Now I wouldn't go delete since i've only done a fraction of a suitable WP:BEFORE because obviously there are so many news [Ed.] articles on COSCO. It's just getting the list notability that's the issue. If it can be done, by @Murgatroyd49: or otherwise then I'd be very glad to be a strong keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simply only a handful of those ships have articles and even then the notability of those vessels isn't guaranteed. And I don't see the encyclopedic value in naming every single unit in a company's fleet roster. Ajf773 (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified my point, by articles I really mean news articles/sources. Obviously only a small number of the ships will have articles/be individually notable. However even my brief look round gave articles on quite a few of the ships. As components in a list they aren't required to meet article-level notability. The list certainly seems beneficial and doesn't seem to breach WP:NOT. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List entries being notable themselves certainly put forward a better case for the WP:LISTN being satisfied. Ajf773 (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So how many entries in a list have to lead to a seperate article to make it notable? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No specific number, depends on consensus. Ajf773 (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTN, WP:GNG, and WP:NOT. No independent reliable source discusses these ships as a group. This is an indiscriminate list of non-encyclopedic material, similar to a published list of staff at a university, such as Solent University. Such lists are of limited interest to the general public. If the COSCO fleet lists were of general public interest, we would expect several independent reliable sources to discuss them as a group. This list relies on COSCO's own website, a primary source. SilkTork (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are the company websites primary sources? The primary source for this data is the company's offical records and the various Maritime registries, the website information is derived from those records so is a secondary source. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are primary sources. The company can publish the information in various ways, each way, be it book, film, or webpage, is a primary source because it is the company themselves who are publishing the information. A secondary source is a source independent of the company - not related to the company in any way (not paid or commissioned by the company, not working for the company, not a different branch of the company, etc). Completely separate. We can use primary sources for factual information, but we depend on secondary sources for notability. SilkTork (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which is basically what I did, used the the company lists to get the ship names, often having to unscramble the Chinese-English translations, and checked the details with marinetraffic and other similar websites. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:24, 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 delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frontiersmen (University of Houston)[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. The article has one primary source. I tried to find third party reliable sources on the subject... but searching came up blank. Vanstrat ⁽⁽🗼⁾⁾ 03:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no 3rd party coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Midhilesh Sunder[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBADMINTON] and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 03:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the notability criteria for badminton players or WP:ANYBIO. Being captain of his university team and some success as a junior is not enough to show notability. According to the world badminton federation website, he never played internationally in singles and had one appearance in a doubles match (where he and his partner lost in the first round of trying to qualify for the main draw of a tournament in Singapore[33]. Was never ranked in the world top 1000 in either singles or doubles. Papaursa (talk) 01:53, 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. The only keep !vote does not address the notability concern. – Joe (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alpine Games[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Has not been improved since 2007, still fails WP:GNG and Atari Times external link is not enough. Govvy (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 03:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Like most homebrew games, the coverage on this seems to be limited to a few fandom-specific sites. Not nearly enough sources out there to establish notability.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even though the article has not been improved, it gives some basic information. Hence a good reason to no delete. 42Bastian (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete - fails WP:GNG. Whilst the arguement that because it hasn't been updated is a flawed one, the subject of the article isn't notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:34, 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 redirect to Scratch (programming language). – Joe (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch Wiki[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB. Only cited sources are from the site itself, a quick google search gave no reliable independent sources either. Possibly not even enough to justify its own section in Scratch. Omni Flames (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*Week Delete - Per nom. || Regards // 12LA 12:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC) struck !vote by block-evading sockpuppet Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 21:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 03:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge very selectively (a mention basically) and Redirect to Scratch (programming language). Not really seeing much in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources, but even if a couple more were to come to light and it would scrape by WP:WEB, WP:NOPAGE applies. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Can't find any coverage, put a mention in Scratch and redirect there Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:32, 31 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)} 18:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EPlasty[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Since this article was proposed for deletion in 2013, no new evidence for notability has come forward. It is still not indexed in even a single selective database (it is in PubMed because as an open access journal, it is included in PubMed Central, but it is not included in the more selective MEDLINE and Index Medicus subsets). It is not even included in Scopus, the least selective database among those that WP:NJournals considers "selective". Clear fail of NJournals. No independent sources, so also fails WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 21:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 03:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Randykitty. Journal is also still not frequently cited (compared to notable journals, per the previous deletion discussion in 2013) and there is no indication it is historically important (WP:JOURNALCRIT). DferDaisy (talk) 16:42, 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 no consensus. After 24 days and several re-listings with no additional input, there is no consensus as to notability. SilkTork (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boze Hadleigh[edit]

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

Deletion requested by article subject via OTRS (#2018050210000042). Proposing for deletion under WP:BBLP. Notability exists, but is borderline; current article focuses overwhelmingly on subject's LGBT work and ignores rest of output in arguable violation of WP:UNDUE. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very strange request. Author writes books including Gays of Hollywood and Lesbians of Hollywood, books about Hollywood gossip regarding Gays and Lesbians and wants his own article deleted because it focuses "too much" on his Gay and Lesbian focus? Not to mention his book The Vinyl Closet:Gays and Lesbians in the Music World. Weird. As the nom says, clearly notable. His work has been reviewed and he's noted in a variety of reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability of his gossiply works is not high enough to make an article absolutely needed, so we should respect the request.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too true! Deb (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not as a favor but as a gift. The subject may whine and cry but notability is a disease without a cure or a vaccine. The text of the article, though, sucks big time. But you might argue that there's nothing wrong with that. -The Gnome (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mr. Hadley, People admire your books Boze Hadleigh's 1994 book Hollywood Lesbians (Barricade Books) slammed open the closet door on some of Hollywood's most famous stars, including Barbara Stanwyck, Ann B. Davis, Agnes Moorehead, Edith Head, and Dame Judith Anderson. Now Riverdale Avenue Books is publishing an updated ..., The Advocate 2017. I am sorry if being notable is uncomofrtable for you, but, as the reviewer Washington Blade wrote in it's review of your book Marilyn Forever, People will talk. And that can be a bad thing: gossip is often mean and its shelf-life is sometimes longer than we'd like. On the other hand, a bit of scandalous chatter can be great, as in the new book “Marilyn Forever” by Boze Hadleigh. Because if people are talking about you, they remember you.. Here's a search on his penname in the LATimes [34]. With many book reviews and SIGCOV, I do not see an argument to delete this writer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 03:01, 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. – Joe (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Carol Roberts[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability - all the sources are written by her, not about her. GRuban (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. Some of the sources are book reviews in magazines (e.g. Orion) and institutional sources from where she works/has worked. MurielMary (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - published author with media coverage. MurielMary (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What category of notability does that pass? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:Prof. GS cites negligible. Just publishing stuff does not give notability. It has to be noted by others. WP:too soon Xxanthippe (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
~~Keep~~ - She is well published, has media coverage and additionally often holds public lecturers. I am not seeing a failure of WP:Prof, she is a Fulbright fellow and has had a significant impact on Antarctic Studies. However I do think this article needs clean up with better sources and CE. Jooojay (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being well published (whatever that means) is not enough. The work has to be well cited. I can find only 6 citations on Google scholar. Compare this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy Cheney (scientist) with 32,673 citations. WP:Prof#C1 is not passed by a long margin: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Leslie Carol Roberts is not only a research scholar and professor (like the example you provided), but also a journalist, book author, and the chair of a department at a major university. Google Scholar is best used for research, but it doesn't cover all of the bases. Jooojay (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being the chair of a university department does not pass any category of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I wasn't implying that "being the chair of a university department does not pass any category of WP:Prof" either, I was simply stating that looking at one category is simply not a fair way of assessing a person if they are claiming multiple skillsets. That being said, I remove my vote because I think this is hard to assess considering the multiple skillset based on how poorly written and sourced the current article is. There may be a possible COI by an editor. Jooojay (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a Fulbright Scholar is not sufficent for notability. The number of secondary sources is small and one of these is just a link to a calendar entry and the other to the faculty page. Being faculty is not enough in itself to meet the notability test. Timoluege (talk) 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, Sandstein 17:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigma^msg 02:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely fails the notability guidelines for both writers and academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One book is a good start, but with only one specialist-magazine review (that I can find) it isn't enough by itself for WP:AUTHOR nor for WP:PROF. And I agree that the Fulbright is also not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 31 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 California's 45th congressional district#2018 Midterm Election. – Joe (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Min[edit]

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

The relevant notability standards here would be either WP:NPOL or WP:PROF, and I don't think he meets either one. Congressional candidates aren't notable for their candidacy alone, and I'm not seeing PROF here either. Marquardtika (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to California's 45th congressional district#2018 Midterm Election. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Such redirects should be and very often have been standard practice for biographies of unelected political candidates. This biography was created a few weeks after he declared his candidacy in an obvious effort to promote that candidacy. All of the independent sources were published after he became a candidate and are mostly routine local articles much like every single serious Congressional candidate receives. Such biographies are targets for disruptive political operatives, both paid and volunteer. This article has been edited by a paid staffer of a rival campaign. There are well over 1000 Congressional candidates in the upcoming U.S. elections and tens of thousands more in state level elections. If we open that floodgate, we will be fighting ten thousand battles simultaneously. These candidates should be covered, briefly, in balanced articles about individual political races that treat all candidates neutrally. If Min wins his race for Congress, the biography should be recreated then. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I tried to redirect this article and was reverted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Cullen. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have little doubt that the article was created for promotional purposes, and it's seen more than its fair share of COI editing. However the article has been largely cleaned up, and there's no reason to blow it up now based on things that happened in the past. Future disruption can be dealt with. Regarding notability, there are more than enough reliable sources to easily satisfy our general notability guideline. We have the LA Times, NBC News, Roll Call, OC Weekly, the OC Register, the Korean Times, all mostly about Min. And those are just the sources that are currently cited after a deep cull of the promotional content. Heck, the guy also received a paragraph and a photo in The NY Times. WP:POLITICIAN is explicit that candidates for office can be notable "if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.'" WP:BASIC is also explicit that WP:POLITICIAN is merely an additional avenue to establish notability. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cullen. If the page must remain, I recommend it be locked until after the election as it has proven a tempting target for Min supporters to add re-hosted promotional material as flattering sources. BrittonBurdick (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BrittonBurdick has been identified by Cullen328 as an employee of a rival campaign. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's true and I added that disclaimer to the relevant article's talk page. There have already been multiple edits from Min's team attempting to editorialize the article in ways that either flatter Min or discredit his opponents. That is why I think a redirect/deletion would be the best option. I agree with the other editors that suggest reinstating the article in November might make sense if Min wins the election.BrittonBurdick (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Cullen. The existence of some campaign-related coverage is not in and of itself a free pass over WP:GNG for an as yet unelected candidate who doesn't already have preexisting notability for other reasons — every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign-related coverage, so that coverage does not establish notability in and of itself unless it explodes to a degree that marks him out as a special case over and above most other candidates. We do not exist as a promotional venue for publishing aspiring officeholders' campaign brochures — a person has to hold a notable political office, not just run for one, to be considered notable as a politician. Notability here is not measured by temporary newsiness — it is measured by the will people still be looking for an article about this person ten years from now test, which unelected candidates for office normally do not pass. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, since his notability equation will thus have changed, but nothing here is already enough to get him a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cullen, who explained the issue quite well. Wikipedia should not be a repository of campaign biographies, and candidates are, outside the context of their race, low-profile individuals. --Enos733 (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many instances of significant national coverage about him around the time of his announcement in April 2017 to run. I think he received more coverage and attention than is typical for the position he's running for, but all those articles might be considered standard reporting for a newly announced candidate. However, he has also received additional national news coverage since then, which shows there is national interest in him and the race beyond what is typical. He received more than a paragraph in NYT in Nov 2017,[35] and six paragraphs leading an article on candidates of color on CNN in January 2018[36] and an article about how he's campaigning in Roll Call.[37] He made huge headlines during the Democratic Party Convention when he just barely received the nomination.[38][39] I think he easily passes WP:GNG for significant coverage in secondary, independent sources, even if you ignore the "standard" coverage about his candidacy. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per nom. Also per WP:NTEMP and WP:TOOSOON. -O.R.^Comms 02:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National coverage + he is an assistant professor + ethnic minority + bitcoin + seems mildly interesting. On other hand, needs to be kept under control... ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 08:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage is of the election, not him as a person. Unelected candidates for congress are just almost always non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cullen328. The article does not meet WP:POLITICIAN and does not establish notability. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I want to thank Cullen³²⁸ for his assistance in helping me avoid an edit war and shepherding the recommendation to redirect this page. I am in agreement, with users who recommend keeping this page, but I am a voter in the 45th Congressional District, and I have met all the candidates. I'm also probably the person responsible for having this page removed, if that is the outcome, because I'm the one who brought the egregious edits to everyone's attention, so I am not weighing in. I especially want to thank Dr. Fleischman for his extensive edits to help maintain a neutral tone on the page, and want to thank ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ and others for their contributions. But I also want to admonish BrittonBurdick who rather disingenuously wrote "I've done my best to revert promotional editorialization but have a hunch it will continue to happen through June 5th" and then went on to insert yet another highly biased opinion without first discussing it on the talk page. He's the reason we're having this discussion. Gbonline (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. (Maybe I should abstain...we have the same employer and there are four Dave Min campaign signs on the block where I live. Feel free to disregard if you think that makes for too much of a COI.) For now, the coverage appears to be only about his campaign (usually considered non-passing of WP:POLITICIAN), and we don't have evidence of passing WP:PROF. If he makes it through the primary and then wins the general, he will become notable, or maybe we can look back at all this later and see lasting interest in his campaign that makes it notable even if he doesn't win. But there's no hurry and for now I think it's better not to open the floodgates of "this person got their campaign covered in the newspaper so they're notable". —David Eppstein (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, we have plenty of evidence of him passing WP:BASIC. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that statement. The sources you posted are good ones but don't, in my reading, proving lasting notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you're referring to WP:SUSTAINED? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The only thing I could find looking for legal scholarship under his name is that he signed this letter from 120 banking law professors to Congress opposing a change in Dodd–Frank. If he gets elected to Congress, he's notable, but otherwise he should concentrate on getting published if he wants ten^H^H^Ha Wikipedia article. Daniel Case (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew White (businessman)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. He lost a primary election and is not otherwise notable. Marquardtika (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete did not even get the party nomination, clearly not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:53, 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. – Joe (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parcom[edit]

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

unsourced advert for a web hosting provider Wolfson5 (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article by Parcom, making claims but sourced only to the company's own site. The company appears to have been merged into Dreamersi (no article) under Pacific Software (no article) a few years ago. My searches are finding only passing coverage of a service outage, no substantial coverage as required for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total spam, no attempt at creating an article to meet the required criteria, zero indications of notability, fails WP:SPIP. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:31, 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. – Joe (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advance Gold[edit]

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

lightly sourced advert on a not notable company Wolfson5 (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:01, 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 soft delete. What an extraordinary feat of endurance -- the article has been up since 2004 with nary a source. I take no pleasure in deleting this, so if any sources do materialize, please make use of WP:REFUND. A Train^talk 19:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McCoy Manufacturing[edit]

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

This article on a defunct train company is unsourced and admits, in the article, the company is not notable: "although not widely known ..." Wolfson5 (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:46, 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. – Joe (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fresco Norway[edit]

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

unsourced advert Wolfson5 (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to source this, it fails GNG/NCORP. Cafetalera del Norte was esentially the same text, and could have been WP:BUNDLED here. I redirected it instead. Sam Sailor 13:26, 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. – Joe (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alvexo[edit]

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

article is sourced to press releases - not notable company Wolfson5 (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article text and references falls into categories of regulatory approval (the basic operational requirement), sponsorship coverage (specifically considered as trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH) and some routine start-up announcement coverage of their platform. I am not seeing the in-depth coverage required to demonstrate notability attained either as a company or as a financial product. AllyD (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero indications of notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 18:44, 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. A Train^talk 07:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ladder (company)[edit]

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private company. Singificant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Budha_Everyday with few other contributions outside this topic. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. At best WP:TOOSOON. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:09, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Train^talk 07:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish-Kurdish Regional Government Economic Trade Relations[edit]

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

This appears to be a well-sourced essay or analytical paper, instead of an encyclopedia article. Chetsford (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment user's only non-sandbox edit to Wikipedia was creating this article. There's some good information here so I'm curious to see if anyone else thinks it could be saved in some sort of geography or international relations article. If not, delete per WP:NOTESSAY. SportingFlyer talk 00:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca ^talk 01:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep this text, which is clearly an essay. Yet if it can be salvaged before the AfD time's up, we can perhaps keep it. The subject is most definitely a notable one. It concerns something more general that should be reflected in the title: I'd prefer "Turkish-Kurdish Regional Government Relations." But I do see the point made in the nomination. Let's wait for the weekend.-The Gnome (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome - just to clarify for the closer, since the weekend is now over and no substantive changes have been made to the article, your !vote has transitioned to delete? Chetsford (talk) 21:28, 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. A Train^talk 07:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest paid mayors[edit]

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

This is an absurdly incomplete list. It's very problematic that a number of individuals and cities are being described as having the highest salaries when there is no sourcing or comprehensive list to actually verify that the individuals in the top five actually have the highest salaries in the world. The only reason why Iceland has six of the top 20 highest paid mayors in the world is simply that editors from bothered to edit this page while editors from other countries have not. I don't know if this is right, but surely this page skirts WP:NPOV by giving such a misleading and incomplete portrait of mayoral salaries. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the topic is notable, as a quick google search reveals. However, all the points against this article Snooganssnoogans bought up are correct, this article is very problematic. I suggest that the article be separated by country, so that Icelandic and American mayors be listed in a different section so there is no confusion. When data from different countries come, they would go in a separate graph. We could even rename the article list of highest-paid mayors by country. Emass100 (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*comment- is incomplete yes, but the highest is in it, but data is woefully wrong, for political office holders from Singapore, they do not get the mayor pay but the office pay which is even highest. and that's good. passing remark, not voting on this --Quek157 (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is both WP:SYNTH (as the "highest-paid" is compiled from a lot of individual salary information, and is certainly incomplete), and trivia. Wikipedia is generally not a directory of people's salaries. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per synth and my previous concerns about incorrect data. per not indiscrimate also.Quek157 (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia is not a book of world records, and it certainly shouldn't be a used to publish rankings established through the original research of Wikipedia editors. Pburka (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is not a WP:SYNTH because this subject of the highest wage of mayors is often discussed in reliable sources, as revieled by a quick google search. what makes it appear to be WP:SYNTH is the way the information is presented, but this can be changed; is not a reason for deletion when the overall theme of the article easily meets the WP:GNG. Emass100 (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I linkede this discussion on the article resue squadron to help make those changes necessary for4 this article to be kept. Emass100 (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH unless someone finds a complete and reliable list published somewhere and refers to it. If only some cities are included in the list and individual references are used, than this is certainly original research and should not be here. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.

I think the articles for each city should have the mayor's salary listed, that telling you something about how the city is run, and reliable sources do cover this. Having an article for each nation for comparison might make sense, but comparing different nations that use different currencies with no information about what the cost of living is in each one, seems like it might be misleading. This article doesn't list when the information was updated for each entry either. Dream Focus 17:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and other comments suggesting WP:SYNTH. This article would not be manageable otherwise given the currencies differ in other countries and the fact remuneration changes almost annually in many cities. Ajf773 (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pending some evidence of sources actually listing highest-paid mayors in order; the sources currently cited in the article appear to simply be used to verify individual salaries, not where said salaries fall in the "list", which is an OR nightmare. Additionally, since the list will never be comprehensive, assuming the ones whose salaries can be verified are the highest-paid in the world is probably somewhat WP:SYSTEMIC: surely mayors in countries with lax corruption legislation are by definition higher paid (if not higher salaried) than most of those listed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a Singaporean, I can attest to the salaries of Singapore not being OR, but fact. But my previous concerns of inaccuracies are still there, as clearly Dr Maliki, being a SMS will hold SMS pay not mayor pay, whosoever did this list must be wrongly interpreting salaries. OR/SYNTH in general. --Quek157 (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Quek157: Even if individual salaries are accurate and sourced -- actually even if all the cited salaries are accurate and sourced -- it is still OR to place them in order in a list of "the highest paid mayors" as there are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of other mayors whose salaries were not checked. The only way this could not be OR would be if an external source actually listed all these mayors' salaries in order. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yes, do read, I said OR/SYNTH in general Quek157 (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On notability and synth grounds. This article is a dubious collation of information, and Wiki is not a repository for unofficial ranking charts. doktorb _words^deeds 06:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.ibm.com/ibm/ideasfromibm/us/ibm_fellows/2018/index.html

[2] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/rera-violation-40-fresh-notices-issued-to-builders/articleshow/64068760.cms

[3] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/rera-notice-to-10-city-realtors/articleshow/62825448.cms

[4] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Estate_(Regulation_and_Development)_Act,_2016

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]