Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 April	28 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Print (Youth Brigade album)

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

Aside from the AllMusic review, there is a clear lack of reliable secondary sources on this compilation. It did not chart and was not particularly influential so it also fails WP:NALBUM. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indication of WP:GNG coverage.the eloquent peasant (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sound & Fury (1982 album). Same album with slightly different track listing.Hoponpop69 (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Moreno de Aponte

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

no evidence for notability ,either by WP:PROF or otherwise, DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the obituary that is currently the only ref isn't sufficient. The current version is a WP:G12 copyvio as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. AfD is not for cleanup... Randykitty (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Smith (Motorola engineer)

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

Very poorly written with rampant grammatical errors. Very little of this article pertains to its subject at all; style is promotional and littered with weasel words. Much of the very basic information (When did he start working for Motorola? When did he develop Six Sigma?) blatantly contradicts the Six Sigma article. Chimneyrock (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Six Sigma is a really important philosophy. They use to teach it to us in Business School. So I am pretty sure this guy is highly cited. I think that gets him by based on WP:ACADEMIC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, developed 6 sigma, highly notable. Szzuk (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable as inventor of Six Sigma, and has the sources to back that up. The article's badly written and needs some serious editorial love, but that's not a reason to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. In my opinion, this article clearly violates WP:NOTNEWS and it is way too early to establish any lasting influence of this purely local event, part of a (likely notable) national event. But as closer, my opinion does not count and the consensus clearly is for keeping this article. So be it. Randykitty (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March for Our Lives Portland

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. No lasting effects as of yet. Event is part of several protests across the nation (we could create many articles like this one). No significant coverage in non-local sources (national/international). I am regretfully nominating this well-written article. wumbolo ^^^ 22:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March for Our Lives Portland and Talk:March_for_Our_Lives_Portland#Propose_merging_into_parent_March_for_Our_Lives_article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is somewhat borderline, but I believe that the article has enough coverage to be kept. There is in-depth coverage on the March. Some of the in-depth coverage is local, but a lot of this type of coverage also exists at the state level [1]. The Portland march also gets some light coverage at the federal level [2], and is mentioned a lot in relation to the general march. As for duration of coverage, the oldest source I found is from March 3. The most recent sources come from mid-April, and discuss the Portland March for Our Lives March in the larger context of state gun control efforts. For example, the article “We will Change the World” (Lake Oswego Review (OR) - April 20, 2018 Author/Byline: Gary M. Stein Section: Education) (use newsbank to view) contained a paragraph on the Portland March for Our Lives in a larger article about the April 20 walk-outs. Finally, this article is for all points and purposes a spin-off of the main March for Our Lives articles. It cannot be merged back in without either lopping off a ton of encyclopedic information or causing the article to have an undue focus on Portland. I believe that letting the article stay as-is is preferable to outright deletion, or the problems that a merge would bring. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Portland article is largely either trivial details such as the fact that permits were pulled or background details which reference the parent article. There is little unique, encyclopedic information in this article vs in the parent. Springee (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is already bloated with details on every march, and I would be opposed to merging even a few sentences into it. Here, the “Demonstration” section alone contains several paragraphs worth of information (all of which is cited to reliable secondary sources). This is a massive amount of information to merge into an article that already focuses too much on individual marches. Further, I would not be so quick to dismiss the information in the “Local organizers and planning.” All of it is relevant background information to the main “Demonstration” section. Furthermore, there is neither an uncited sentence nor a sentence cited to a primary source anywhere in the section. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per this quote from the lede, "The protest was the city's largest since the January 2017 Women's March on Portland; the Portland Police Bureau estimated a crowd size of 12,000." shows this to be a very notable event. - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@C. W. Gilmore: many other March for Our Lives protests garnered more than 12,000 protesters. The first part of the sentence fails WP:GEOSCOPE. wumbolo ^^^ 07:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Not in Portland Oregon, in fact you would have to go back to the large anti-Iraq War protests of over a decade ago to find protests of this size in Portland. This makes it of consequence and notable. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:NEVENT; sourcing is sufficient for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: This topic is clearly significant as party of a large series of marches described n the parent article. If one reads this Portland article you will find it has little unique content that isn't mundane or non-encyclopedic. The parent article can easily absorb this content (especially if the list of locations, content that also exists in a stand alone article, is cut down from the parent article). The current article has four sections, an intro that talks about the overall marches, an organization section which, other than the names of the organizers, is filled with mundane details like a permit was pulled or the city redirected traffic etc. Here is an example of the section with the mundane or repeated material removed [[3]]. The article has perhaps a good paragraph of stand alone content that would easily fit into the parent article. Finally, this merge would be better for the reader as it keeps the related content together. Springee (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Springee. We don't need articles on every city's individual version of the main event. Number 5 7 15:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NEVENT; sourcing is sufficient for a stand-alone article. Note that merge often results in a delete, so people voting 'merge' are usually voting to delete. For example, look what happened with the Boycott of Sinclair Broadcasting Group -- the decision was to merge the boycott article into Sinclair Broadcasting Group. So I merged it, (about 16K bytes) then an hour spent merging it was reverted with a mouseclick. In short, the 'boycott' article was deleted. So 'merge' often means 'delete'.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a valid concern but also one that is easy enough to address if a merger occurs. You have the Sinclair article as an example. Was the trimmed material redundant or of little value? What was local consensus at the Sinclair article on the matter? (Edited to make it clear I was still referring to the Sinclair example offered above)Springee (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note consensus to not merge here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the above case I was still referring to the offered Sinclair example. In the case of your link to the subject of this AfD, the local consensus comprised largely of involved editors was keep. Springee (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~That's a mischaracterization. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)~~ (edit conflict) My comment was w/r/t a previous version of your comment. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Selective merge to parent article, as should happen with all these <Protest March><Some City> articles. I marched (not in Portland), so I'm certainly a supporter of the movement. But, the article is just full of trivia. The entire Local organizers and planning section, for example, is just trash. Statements like, According to the Portland Police Bureau, organizers obtained proper permits for the demonstration, even if well sourced, are just fluff. Most of what's in the Background section, is completely generic to the whole March for Our Lives movement. Looking at the Demonstration section, we have such earth-shattering statements as, The rally began on time. Pick some of the more significant events that were specific to this march and mention them in the parent article. The rest is just trivia. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nino Kader

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

Non-notable marketing executive. I can't even find brief mentions of him. SmartSE (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the "Articles and interviews" section makes the case pretty strongly, in that it's a string of brief mentions or of using him as an example of a category, rather than as someone with a special place in his profession. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails Wikipedia:NBIO.آریانا فغان (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This Article should be kept in wikipedia. Nino Kader is a popular name in international media. SBShuvo (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC) Note: I moved this comment here; it had been placed on the article talk page, but was clearly intended to address the deletion request. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was canvassing. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this entry for Nino Kader in 2013 after seeing him multiple times on Al Jazeera as a technology expert (https://www.aljazeera.com/Search/?q=nino%20kader) in addition he was featured on the front page of the Washington Post for his professional expertise (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/01/AR2007070101355.html?nav=E8) these should suffice for keeping this page in additon to the many other media mentions where he is quoted (Harvard Politics Magazine, Wired, Newsweek, Bloomberg). NYMediaGuy
Keep - To me, the guy is notable enough given the significant coverage he received and wide media mentions across publications. I'd argue the editors voting a delete to reconsider their attitude regarding his notability. AhmadRezq (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that concerns were raised at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:NYMediaGuy that this was created for pay. Sbshuvo looks suspicious to me e.g. Erwin Mahroug and Bboyworld (see also BBoy World) which are both also at AFD. AhmadRezq is a 'new' user who somehow found this AFD.... It would be good to relist this. SmartSE (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR. Coverage is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. Looks to be UPE, as alluded to at COIN. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~: He is a regular fixture on TV and in the media. Here is a list of appearances on Al Jazeera (https://www.aljazeera.com/Search/?q=nino%20kader)NYMediaGuy

@NYMediaGuy: I have struck your "Keep" as you have already !voted above. SmartSE (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SmartSE: Why the sudden attacks on the entries for Nino Kader and Clayton Swisher? Is this political? Are you being paid to slander?

Keep - I remember my professor at the university showed us one of his interviews. I dont remember what was the point, but this is as oppose to many other so called marketing executives who never left a foot print anywhere. This gut published books and was interviewed on TV for me it is enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.244.8.233 (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is no sign of particular success or import to have self-published books, which appears to be what Kader has. Going by this Amazon UK listing and the links off of it, his books were published by "Vested Owl"... and doing a publisher search for Vested Owl finds zero non-Kader books listed. These books do not seem to have been significant; of the three, only one got any Amazon reviews, and that was three reviews within the year that the book was published and none in the dozen years since. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Masciotra

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

Promotional article with no evidence of notability. All the references were written by himself! Gbawden (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article isn't remotely promotional. It consists of two perfectly neutral, objective sentences stating who he is and the subjects of three works he's written. He did make the common mistake, in the case of a subject's written and online works, of citing the works themselves rather than independent reliable sources for purposes of WP:V. Largoplazo (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's an awful lot of material online by Masciotra, and an awful lot of profiles of him—on the websites of the numerous publications for which he's written, so the contribute nothing to WP:N. The only discussion of him I've found so far has amounted to scathing criticism over something he wrote for Salon. No clear signs of WP:N yet. Even so, I'm not done searching, but I'm depositing this comment here for the time being for consideration by others, for what it's worth. Largoplazo (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The notability criticism is fair, but given the myriad bozos from the NFL, MLB, NBA...who have entries in WP, the notability criterion is a weak one on which to hinge an entry. An author/journalist with publications from legitimate sources seems notably legitimate.
- FYI, notability, as explained at WP:N, isn't a quibble, it's a cornerstone of Wikipedia. Largoplazo (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Cornerstone sounds like a weasel word. Entries for washed-up professional athletes and aspiring celebrities seem far less notable
    - I can't imagine what strikes you as "weaselly" about it, because I wasn't stretching a point or waving my hands, I was explaining to you something of the criteria that go into these decisions, based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (though maybe you think those are also "weasel words"), in contrast to how things "seem" to you based on your personal sense of what the word means. As for pointing at other articles, well, maybe their subjects do meet the notability guidelines; or maybe they also qualify for deletion. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Largoplazo (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair enough. I've replaced a few self-referential citations with citations by third parties.
Keep, the refs check out. Szzuk (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We can keep a writer under WP:CREATIVE if his works get coverage, but I am not finding reviews of David Masciotra's books, or published INDEPTH consideration of them in the years since publication. We can also keep an individual who generates WP:SIGCOV in the form of multiple profiles of him that are INDEPENDENT and INDEPTH. The problem here is that while Masciotra has written many articles and several books, neither he nor the books has generated WP:SIGCOV that I can find. I am always willing to change an iVote if someone comes up with solid sources, feel free to ping me to reconsider if someone does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This looks OK I seem to remember seeing several of this quality by checking the refs in the article. Szzuk (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a review of the Mellencamp book on a Cincinnati public radio station, and one in the Journal of Indiana History. Two book reviews, neither in a publication of much note, do not suffice to make the Mellencamp book a notable work. Which is what we need to keep under WP:AUTHOR 3. Nor does the one brief review of his liner notes make the liner note a notable work. And I can find no others. Nor any profiles. It is just not enough. The fact that these sources "check out" is good, but we would need several more similar to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't mentioned the ref I linked to? Szzuk (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that I checked all references on the page before I wrote my iVote. I also searched JSTOR and searched books for both "Masciotra, david" and "David Masciotra." He gets surprisingly few citations in other people's books, and there were no hits showing that other authors engage with his work. To be sure, gbooks is not perfect, it scans random pages. But when an intellectual or author is having an impact, you get hits along the lines :In his book on Springstein, Masciotra argues that. That is the sort of thing that supports notability. Or reviews, but the sole review in JSTOR was the the Indiana History journal. Or profiles. I would be happy to rethink, but I cannot find sources and the ones on the page are just not enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient depth of coverage to address WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Septrillion (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing trespass

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

~~WP:DICDEF Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Septrillion (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Speedy keep Septrillion (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment I am the author of the article. I do not feel very strongly about this article (nor do I have the time to participate in a deletion discussion), so personally I will defer to whatever consensus is reached on this deletion page. However, speaking as a lawyer with a real estate background, my own opinion is that this article has potential to be expanded. While it may look like a dictionary entry now, it is more fair to view it as a stub that just needs expanding. That's my 2 cents. Don't have time to comment again. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 21:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should expand it then. Septrillion (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Provided the article can be expanded.TH1980 (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expand it, then. Septrillion (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Trespass after a rewrite - probably could be a couple sentences as a before search brings up some common law stuff (though it wasn't that thorough of a search, to be honest). SportingFlyer talk 05:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it's a stub, but the topic is notable and the subject of academic scholarship. See, e.g. Bernard J. Davies, Continuing Trespass, 59 J. Crim. L. Criminology & Police Sci. 24 (1968). Clicking on the links in "Finding sources" above, in particular the initial link (google search) and the JSTOR link show many more.

I note that the article was flagged as "unreferenced" at the same time as its AFD nomination. In fact, it has two references, but they were inline and perhaps not clearly seen as references. I've updated the article to make the references more clear and removed that tag. TJRC (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queryen

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

For a band claiming to be so known, there is a total lack of sources reliable or otherwise to be found. Their own website doesn't even work and the sk.wp articles contains nothing more than several dozen Facebook links (all of which are dead.) I can't verify this exists much less that they are notable. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Woei!! Fails the GNG. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's the beginning of a translation of a long page with 27 sources here [[4] but hey if none of them check out delete it. Legacypac (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac did you bother reading my nomination? References in the form of links does not mean that sources exist. In this case, as I said, I reviewed all of the sources on the sk article and 90% of them were their own Facebook page (which no longer exists), their own website (which is empty), soundcloud, youTube and a PDF interview. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I read the nomination and I agreed with you. Legacypac (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Abashedly no evidence of notability. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Mychajliw

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

Second nomination of recreated bio. Essentially the same reason: county-level functionary with no other notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michig or Bearcat could an admin check the deleted copy from 2014 against the current revisions to see if they suitably different? thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It's different enough in form that this wouldn't be speediable as a recreation of deleted content, though there's obviously no appreciable difference in the strength of the base notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County comptrollers are not automatically accepted as notable just because they exist, but this features neither the sourcing nor the substance necessary to make him more notable than the norm for a generally non-notable level of political office — five of the seven footnotes are to sources that do not support notability, such as primary sources and raw tables of election results — and the two that actually represent media coverage are purely local media coverage of the type that's merely expected to exist for all local officeholders, so it does not represent enough media coverage to hand him a WP:GNG pass in lieu of failing NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Before renominating, consider whether multiple such terms can't be merged to a list. So Why 10:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency War Order

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

US military terminology. Tagged unsourced since 2014. Content fails WP:V. The one external link is dead, and a search reveals no immediately useful sources. Such sources would be needed particularly for some of the more exceptional assertions, such as that military commanders can order "summary execution for refusal to follow orders". The page creator is indef-blocked for "repeated image copyright violations", which does not makes their content more worthy of trust. Sandstein 19:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Page creator is no longer blocked (here I am!). This article also has no images, so its not connected to the block reason. I wrote this article six years ago and mainly relied on my military knowledge and the information from the external link which is now deactivated. There is some material out there about the famous "EWOs", but no one really seems inclined right now to find it. -O.R.^Comms 06:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. and reads more like an essay with WP:OR. Kierzek (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Keep - These do indeed exist, but where exactly we could find good references, I have no clue. EWOs are normally classified documents maintained as part of Standard Operating Procedures, or more specifically, Emergency Operating Orders. The bit about the CO and XO not being able to eat in the same part of the ship during war is fairly well documented, although directly connecting it to an EWO would be tricky. So, I'm very neutral about this deletion. -O.R.^Comms 15:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC) (Upgraded to Keep after finding two reliable source references). -O.R.^Comms 06:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. given the large number of Google references from search the term, including [5] there's no basis for concluding this is unsourceable DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: The Time source you cite only briefly mentions the topic in the sentence "The third test—emergency war orders—is closed-book, given in a classified classroom known as “the vault,” and is the toughest of the lot." This only verifies the existence of the term, but none of this article's contents. We don't even know whether this is the same kind of orders as the one covered here. I assume you know that vague waves in the direction of search results are not the same thing as actual reliable sources, which is what we need as the basis of an article. Sandstein 06:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cited one: Google lists a number of others. From what I have read, there may be some confusion about the meaning,because it seems also to be used for such things as a specific order to launch a missile.

I added two references I found. EWOs were definitely real, per this extract from an article about SAC bases: The most important and feared command they could ever receive was known as an Emergency War Order (EWO). This order would mean the missiles were to be launched. . I also cleaned up the article and added a third reference to the EWO officer as well. -

O.R.^Comms 07:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cited one: Google lists a number of others, including the ones just added. But from what I have read, there may be some confusion about the meaning,because it seems also to be used for such things as a specific order to launch a missile. I think the article isn ow much clearer about that. DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Should it possibly be merged with EAMs? Smmurphy^(Talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ibanez AW Series

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

No secondary sources, nothing to prove notability. Fails WP:GNG. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject clearly fails WP:GNG, nothing in the article, no results from a quick google search. wikitigresito (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Merge/redirect can be discussed on talk as necessary but there are no arguments here to delete this outright. So Why 10:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heldeep Records

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)

Vanity label owned by DJ Oliver Heldens, mainly used for his own and associated releases. None of the sources discuss the subject significantly. Does not pass WP:CORP. KingAndGod 09:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 15:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: a nn vanity label. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not a vanity label at all, as it has released material by numerous notable artists who are independent of label's founder. A notable label per NMUSIC #5. However, the article is promotional in nature. The topic is an encyclopedic one of interest to musicologists, discographers, and music historians, but there's really not much in the article (as is) that is of help to these groups. In short, notable topic, unhelpful article except for the discography section. (And I'm torn on the appropriateness of a discography section for an ongoing concern because it is inherently promotional vs. my fervent wish that someone had documented ongoing concerns back in the 1930s, say.) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMUSIC is not applicable to record labels as it is only for artists, songs and albums. Record labels are companies and their guideline is WP:NCORP which was updated recently with consensus to a more stricter requirement on sources. Releasing material by notable artists is not at all a criterion for establishing notability on Wikipedia. KingAndGod 05:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. What are record labels notable for? Releasing notable music. WikiProject Record labels several years ago moved from under the Business umbrella to the Music umbrella. There is longstanding consensus that NMUSIC#5 is a guideline for record labels, as there is no specific notability guideline developed for record labels, despite repeated attempts. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to this, there doesn't appear to be consensus as some editors disagreed and few others agreed. I think that discussion should be reposted with RfC to gain consensus on whether record labels can be notable by passing the music guideline or not. I do support the idea of record labels being covered by WP:NMUSIC rather than WP:NCORP. KingAndGod 13:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 17:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep when I click on the "News" link above I find very substantial coverage in a variety of reliable independent sources. Even if it were not independently notable, a merge to the label's owner would be the appropriate outcome not deletion. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could present the substantial coverage of reliable sources here as I tried searching but couldn't find any? KingAndGod 18:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A couple examples include this one and this one. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These sources don't significantly discuss the label. There are just trivial mentions and one line about how the label has "garnered a cadre of success." See more here - WP:ORGCRIT. KingAndGod 18:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per FloridaArmy. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oliver Heldens; not independently notable. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. So Why 10:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tomsrtbt

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

I can't find any non-trivial, independet coverage on this. The name is quite distinct, so google should produce results, but all I get are some mentions on smaller software websites. A couple of decently sized reviews in magazines would certainly help establishing notability, but I can't find anything like this. wikitigresito (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tom's root boot not notable? I suppose it is possible. It was quite popular back in the day when computers had floppy drives. It was the distro you turned to when debugging system problems, much like Knoppix or perhaps DSL today. There look to be two reliable sources in the article itself: the linux.com news article and the the passage in the O'Reilly book. This book claims Tom's root boot was the most popular Linux microdistribution in the 2000 era when it was published. --Mark viking (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in reliable independent sources noted by Mark viking above in the article already and more. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. First, I would like to point out that we as a community tend to have a bias towards tech topics, as many of us are more tech-savvy than the average. Regarding the sources, I would challenge the linux.com article, because the source is not completely independent of the subject. The book you cited is certainly valid, but to me it looks like the subject is only mentioned once without any information about its special features or something like that. wikitigresito (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if there other sources, it would be great if you could add them to the article, I'd be happy to withdraw per WP:HEY. wikitigresito (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. As an aside, "merge" result can naturally arise after deletion discussion, but to solely discuss "merger", talkpage is the right venue. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames of Edinburgh

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

From my knowledge and from what I can get from the article, it looks like Edinburgh doesn't have nicknames that would be independently notable. Therefore, I propose merging this into Edinburgh. wikitigresito (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge.SSSB (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Close AFD is not an appropriate way to propose Wikipedia:Merging. Just go ahead and see how things turn out. Thincat (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Auld Reekie is certainly independently notable, however, this should be merged into a section in the main article Edinburgh. But as Thincat points out, AfD is not the place to discuss mergers and this discussion should be closed. Polyamorph (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I‘m sorry I didn‘t figure out the proper process. Please close this. wikitigresito (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Because in AFD discussions people can quite properly !vote "merge" and the close can also be to merge, it is rather counter-intuitive that merges are not supposed to be proposed at AFD. Thincat (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Latin American cities by murder rate

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

Half of the places listed aren't actually cities but countries. It seems to be difficult to obtain reliable and comparable data for individual cities. We have an article on Crime and violence in Latin America and there is a List of countries by intentional homicide rate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see much valuable information in this article. wikitigresito (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Just a collection of meaningless stats with no obvious way of comparison. Ajf773 (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.BabbaQ (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Kate Hodgkinson

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

18 year old who appears to lack any real notability. Nothing much in the way of sources, none that demonstrate she meets the minimum standard for inclusion. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Too soon perhaps. Bondegezou (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Too soon. No substantial coverage in reliable independemt sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Ross-c (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: appears to have published in one non-notable magazine. WP:TOOSOON. PamD 10:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the page appears to have been created as part of a class assignment, so be nice to the creating editor who has probably been badly advised by whoever is supervising the course. There may be more at Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Old Dominion University/WMNST 2 (Spring 2018). I wish academics would put a little more thought into planning assignments for their students which won't lead to discouraging deletions. PamD 10:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Students bear responsibility for their actions. Our notability standards are posted clearly, if this student had read and followed them she would not have created this and burdened responsible editors with Deleteing it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harahur

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

We've had a break in the parade of dubious Somali place names, but now we have one with substantial verification issues. Geonames says it's a well; the location given in the article is completely wrong; and there's precious little in searching except the usual geo-clickbait. GMaps provides a different location which does have a small settlement nearby, but is this its name? Mangoe (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails V. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Market Trotter

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

non-notable T.V. show, article is worded like an advertisement. Searches produce seemingly no results. 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 13:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I found one passing reference in this article. I couldn't find other reliable mentions and the one passing mention I did find is far from sufficient to support notability. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Asian pornographic actors

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

First this list included in WP: NOTDIRECTORY, Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. Second, unlike other lists with pornographic themes, a list of pornstar by ethnicity does not promote knowledge and has no encyclopedic value, becoming a "Yellow pages" for connoisseurs. In addition it promotes a racial division that is even criticized by sectors of the pornographic industry itself. Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an undefined category list. It says they do not need to be from Asia, which makes its limits hard to define. At the same time this article no where says where those from Israel, Turkey, Syria and other places in south-west Asia should be included. Also, do we include anyone from Russia east of the Urals. What definition of Asian is in use?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of erotic and sex workers with unnatural death

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

This is a bizarre, strangely-defined, unencyclopedic, POV mess of a list. Suicides, overdoses and murders are mashed together, while deaths the author feels are "clearly unconnected" (implying that the suicides and overdoses were otherwise) with past or present "erotic work" (what?) are to be excluded. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: Deleted personal attack. Kirbanzo (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - Maybe I mispronounced. It was not intended to attack. Sorry.Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/fragment - list is not needed. Either split into separate lists (one for suicides and one for murders, for example) or delete. Kirbanzo (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For all the above reasons and it's OR. Bondegezou (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The central idea of the list is to quantify the victims of social stigma against sex workers. So the need to unite deaths like suicide, overdose, homicide, etc. Some links that demonstrate my motivation. [6][7][8]Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- These deaths are "victims of social stigma against sex workers" in your opinion. Your motivation is a breach of WP:NPOV and WP:OR, just as those referenced links are opinion pieces/organisations with an agenda. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place to put forward new synthesises of information, and that is what this is in multiple ways. The above keep vote illustrates why this idea is a horrible one. Wikipedia lists cannot be used to qunatify something as ephemeral as the "social stigma against sex workers" for lots of reasons. To begin with, the vast majority of killings of people involved in the sex trade are no where near notable enough to get an article. In fact, due to the underground and unregulated nature of this industry in many places, even connecting the dots from the fact that the person was murdered to the fact that he or she was involved in making money in exchange for sex is not always going to happen. Next, we should be including in here those Yazidi women who committed suicde rather than be made sex slaves for ISIS fighters, and lots of other things. There may be a worthwhile list here, but Wikipedia is not the place to create it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think there is a place on WP for an article about social stigmatisation of sex workers. I can also see no problem with an article listing sex workers who have had an unnatural death. However combining the two doesn't work imho, and brings us into NPOV and OR. Would suggest splitting the two subjects into two separate article John B123 (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP I think this is a valuable and informative list. This is a subject people are curious about and that is hard to find. It is best they find it all organized on a reliable website such as Wikipedia. I work in the in Pornographic Industry, and I see absolutely no stigmatism or anything else derogatory or against sex workers by this list - just a non-judgemental factual listing of notable Pornstars who have died an untimely death and how. I personally knew four of the people listed - specifically August Ames, Amber Rayne,Yurizan Beltran,and Shyla Stylez (those pictured in the article) - which are all my photos of them. When people learn I'm in the Porn Industry, the thing they always ask me about is the deaths of those pornstars - they want to know if I knew them, what were they like, and how they died. This is something people are very interested in and why this list should remain. Glenn Francis (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Things people ask dudes in the porn industry about" does not equal "encyclopedic topic". And just as we don't list "untimely deaths" in other industries (especially, but not limited to, with the intended implication that their work was linked to their deaths), it isn't appropriate to do so here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about 'does bar room chit-chat equal encyclopic content'- it's much deeper than that. It's a subject that people are very curious and interested in knowing. I learned things from this list that I didn't know before - and this is my profession. The argument that this kind of list shouldn't be allowed becasue there aren't any other lists exactly like it is weak at best. But since you bring that up, I think maybe there should be.Glenn Francis (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many lists in Category:Lists of people by cause of death and it's sub-categories including, occupation related, List of entertainers who died during a performance, Sudden cardiac death of athletes and List of journalists killed in the United States. There are also more specialist lists such as List of fatal cougar attacks in North America and List of selfie-related injuries and deaths. As many of the lists have no corresponding articles for other areas or other related lists, it would seem there is a precedent that lists don't need to have similar lists to justify their existence. John B123 (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or - especially in the case of a list mashing together suicides, murders and drug overdoses as "unnatural deaths" and engaging in original research to draw a link to their work - it might suggest that there isn't one for other areas because it's completely inappropriate. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as very unhelpful list, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Gratuitous displays of dead women's cleavage. No rational basis for inclusion on or exclusion from the list. Marilyn Monroe shouldn't be on the list (and Jayne Mansfield isn't, but died no more "naturally"); Linda Lovelace should be. Including John Sex is apparently senseless. Dying from HIV-related conditions isn't an "unnatural" death, as the word is generally used.. There are entries for people whose cause of death is unknown or unreported. Just a worthless mess. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kazan Gunawan

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

Non-notable scholar. Gunawan's publications have received few if any citations. Little information to be found about him online. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 12:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with the nom--Jac16888 ^Talk 10:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'll assume that "weird" means "not opposed to deletion". If better sources are found, WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 16:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kantha vibhag

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Lack of news coverage and couldn't find any such area listed in the census. According to Google Translate, 'Kantha vibhag' means 'Coastal department'. Cesdeva (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is weird. The creator says it is a "small town" in their edit summary but the two (related) websites they use refer to Kantha Vibhag Navsari area and suggest, as Cesdeva intimates, something other than a town. I wonder if this is someone trying to promote that website, which seems to have a worthy environmental objective but isn't necessarily referring to a populated place etc. I, too, have struggled to find it in census records. - Sitush (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: It sure is strange. I'm beginning to question whether the machine-translation of 'Kantha vibhag' was too literal, and that perhaps it has more equivalency to the English term '(the) seaside'.

The sudden cessation of editing by the page creator also adds to the mystery. Anyway I think we've entered a cul-de-sac. Cesdeva (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weird--Wot Sitush sez. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: We appear to have reached a unanimous consensus that this article is weird. Cesdeva (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:A7. So Why 14:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Ribler

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Might be a joke entry concocted by the subject (who appears to have edited the article) and his friends. While still in the creator's sandbox, the creator seems to have invited contributions from the subject "(please add some stuff about your situation in your early years and perhaps how it influenced your activities now)" Nominated for PROD but deletion notice removed by an IP with the edit summary (No need for removal, everyone in the South Dade area knows this kid.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly fails GNG and trivial. Kierzek (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy - seems to be promotion of an individual. May be a WP:G11.Kirbanzo (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - after reviewing the article in question, I have determined it to fail WP:A7. As such, marking for speedy deletion. Kirbanzo (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Politik

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

Meets neither WP:BIO nor WP:NMUSIC SmartSE (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought for a couple of seconds that someone created an article on my man PolitikZ (He's bringing REAL hip hop back, and therefore definitely passes notability), but no, it's just a non-notable DJ.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 17:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SportingFlyer talk 05:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shen-Castan Edge Detection

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

Non-notable, wholly promotional to promote this algorithm, and badly written/unsourced. Vermont (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no claim of notability, almost WP:OR. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McGill EMF Conference

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

Non-notable per WP:EVENT, with no significant coverage online in WP:RS per WP:GNG. This is a WP:Coatrack attempt at investigative journalism per WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOR, rather than an encyclopedia article. It's terribly sourced, with most of what's written sourced by "smoking gun" correspondence and meeting notes uploaded to the "Truth Tobacco Industry Documents" archive at UCSF, per WP:Primary sources, which in each case support some tiny aspect of one allegation but are then employed in support of a wider argument not supported by the references given, per WP:Synthesis. It also claims in the lead section that one allegedly involved person also did work for the "Vatican's US arm of the Sovereign Knights of Malta", referenced by a conspiracy theory forum, which in turn is referenced by Wikipedia. The large section "Purpose" has just one reference, the sponsor list in a proceedings from the conference.

This is just one article in a WP:Walled garden of POV-pushing articles about the tobacco industry created by User:SAMFist and User:Sfist, which includes Good Epidemiological Practices, WhiteCoats, INFOTAB, Clark S. Judge, Henry Plumb, Baron Plumb#Tobacco industry lobbyist, Thorne G. Auchter, Federal Focus, James J. Tozzi, Libertad (Philip Morris front) (AFD'd at WP:Articles for deletion/Libertad (Philip Morris front).

User:Hzh has made a valiant attempt at cleaning up Good Epidemiological Practices and adding WP:RS, and as Hzh wrote in the de-prod and at their user talk page, it does appear to be on a notable topic and can possibly be rescued. I've removed the worst of the unsourced and poorly sourced allegations on the BLPs above, to try to turn them from hatchet pieces into decent articles. But this article is a giant pile of poorly-sourced allegations about the tobacco industry and some of its people, glommed onto what's nominally supposed to be about the conference. There are several articles already about the Phillip Morris companies, the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, Operation Berkshire, Truth (anti-tobacco campaign), Project SCUM, etc., which for the most part document on-topic, reliably sourced incidents from the industry's terrible history. Articles like those are IMHO the correct way to write about the subject, and not via coatrack OR like this one. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm somewhat puzzled as to why the article is titled "McGill EMF Conference" [9] when sources gives McGill ETS Symposium [10] - you can see that the two searches in Google Books yield different results, with the latter giving some correct search results. Reports give the title as "International Symposium on Environmental Tobacco Smoke" [11]. There are obviously sources on this - in journals, [12],[13], Google Books and other websites - [14], but I'd be inclined to have this deleted and someone else can then write a new article should they so wish, with the correct title or one with a broader subject (i.e. not focused on a single symposium) and one that isn't pushing a POV or OR. Hzh (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus about notability, but the argument that this is very clearly a promotional article (creator: Kmahmood2009) makes the "delete" case stronger. Can possibly be recreated by somebody independent. Sandstein 06:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Mahmood (academic)

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

The professor does not appear to easily pass professor test and basic GNG.. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful.. the article has existed for several years now but without ever having any better sources added. Most of the cited sources are either dubious, non-independent or simply unreliable. The article says the professor have authored some books as well but I'm unable to find any of them notable, either.

PS. please refrain from posting links to Google search results because the name "Khalid Mahmood" is common name in Pakistan so namesake is rather obvious. Please try to provide some specific references here which you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability. Also. lets not use Google Scholar to gauge this person's impact because WP:PROF warns against this.

For what it's worth, apparently the subject himself (Kmahmood2009) has been writing this promotional autobio since the page creation. Saqib (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This guy's work is very highly cited. I did this GScholar search on his name in quotes plus the word "information" outside the quotes and it seemed to filter out false positives. On a hand count it appears that his h-index is over 20. I'm not familiar with all of the journals involved, but at least some are published by Sage, which means they're selective. Some of his articles have over 100 citations. I'm going to say he passes WP:NPROF. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For a very highly cited field H-Index 20 is marginal. --Saqib (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I believe H-index needs to be taken with a grain of salt. --Saqib (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think his academic roles, publishing, editorship, and leadership roles in Pakistani library organizations make him notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially all professors publish something. It's the notable work that counts. In this case, none of the subject's work constitute as notable or remarkable. President of Pakistan Library Association is not some extraordinary office. I cannot verify the subject has been chief ed of Pakistan Journal of Information Management and Libraries. This states him as a member of the Editorial Advisory Board. But even if he's has been chief ed of the said journal, I don't the journal is some major one. I'm afraid none of these position even remotely help establish his WP:N. --Saqib (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem for me is that the tone is promotional - as you'd expect if he wrote it himself. So I'd say, keep, but put a COI notice at the top. Deb (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hear how PROF or ANYBIO is satisfied? On a related note, I'm curious if WP:BLOWITUP make sense if we are going to keep this page? Because from the day first, the subject himself has been writing this autobio. --Saqib (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a borderline case. Deb (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Autobiography written by the subject and his sockpuppets. If the article were to be kept all of those accounts need to be banned from editing it, and it needs to be gutted down to the bare minimum of noteworthy independently citable facts. Softlavender (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notablity is marginal at best while the article fails WP:PROMO quite obviously. Let's not encourage spammers by keeping such borderline articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Schendl

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

BLP written with clear conflict of interest, over positive, sources are mostly primary (own webpage, CV, symposium webpage, university course information!) Non-notable academic. Polyamorph (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikolaus Ritt, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Dollinger, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herbert Koziol. A clear attempt by the user with a COI to promote themselves with vanity pages and/or their PhD supervisors. See also Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Herbert_Schendl,_Herbert_Koziol_et_al.. Polyamorph (talk) 06:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep per WP:PROF#6 "held a highest-level... post at a major academic institution". According to the University of Vienna, he was Chair of the department of English and American Studies, and the Fakultätsvorsitzender of the Humanities faculty. Also, this review of Code-Switching in Early English calls Schendel and co-author Laura Wright "without doubt among the foremost researchers in the field". The article needs improvement in terms of sourcing and tone, but AfD is not for cleanup. Cnilep (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Department chair is definitely not enough for #6. That criterion is about people who are the head of an entire university. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the US or Japan (countries where I happen to have served) department chair is definitely not sufficient, as it is merely an administrative role. In Germany, however, it is my understanding that department chair is an honorary position for a senior scholar. I'm not sure about Austria, and I don't actually know what a Fakultätsvorsitzender is (my dictionary suggests "faculty board head"), so by all means take my recommendation with requisite grains of salt. Cnilep (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets several different criteria ofWP:PROF. As the basic one, thee are sufficient high level publication to show him an authority in his subject. 2, he appears to hold a personal chair at a major university, 3rd, and definitive, a festscrift has been published about his work at this retirement--thats one of the short-=cut indications, and seeing it in the article should have been sufficient reason to not make this nomination. DGG ( talk ) 07:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Realmuto

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

I do not understand why this person is notable. Seems to be a run-of-the-mill enterpreneur. Ymblanter (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references in the article show significant mentions of Realmuto in independent press. Hence, while not a David Bowie, WP:GNG. Ross-c (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A few articles and interviews about the subject's role in developing businesses doth not lasting notability make. WP:TOOSOON. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable PR man.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lakson Group. Sandstein 06:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Sindh Express

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

This newspaper is sister publication of The Express Tribune but fails to meet WP's notability criteria on newspapers itself and clearly fails to meet basic GNG. Never produced award winning work and no significant history either. Most of the coverage about this newspaper is from its sister publication The Express Tribune. Saqib (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lakson Group. samee converse 21:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Samee: I would say no due to the fact that the target article contain only a trivial mention about the newspaper. I don't get the logic behind having redirects on some non-notable entities.. Either have a stand-alone page or nothing at all including so called cheap redirects. --Saqib (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think, it can be merged to Express Tribune or Lakson Group. M A A Z T A L K 00:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tera Zikr

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

Article shows nothing that it would pass WP:NSONG, and a google search did not show anything supporting this song having notability by itself. Ravensfire (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect to Darshan Raval. I know little about this area (including how to find sources beyond Google search), but the provided sources don't show notability. The singer seems to be a reasonable redirect target, though that article has its own issues. The (trivial) sources I find suggest it might have made a top-singles chart, if one exists for India. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage of the song itself, as apart from the album and the artist himself. Given the popularity, I find it incredibly unlikely that it didn't make the Indian music charts as a single, which would make it notable as per WP:NSONG. E.g. 'Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. '. Ross-c (talk) 07:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets the Notability criteria and have significant coverage HeyLetgoletgo (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of James Bond Jr. episodes

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

Probably don't need a single line summary of every episode in a single season cartoon. It is completely unsourced and no real importance outside of James Bond fandom (I am a huge Bond fan, and even watched this show when I was a kid, and I see it as overkill). I am sure most of this information is available outside of Wikipedia, and I don't see this as meeting the notability requirements for an article here. I don't think it's worth merging, since it would overwhelm the main article, and again such detail on such a minor topic, is overkill in my opinion. kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the nominator suggests it is sourcable, even if not at this point in time. The reason to keep is that this could be useful in the James Bond Jr., but is excessive there, and so makes sense for a split. The other reason for keeping would be that some of our readers would appreciate the list. However there is also the question of whether this is a copyright infringement, as the same text is also on IMDB, Dailymotion and Wikia, but who copied who? Anyway if this is copied off other places then copyright infringement speedy delete is appropriate Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't needed; the show is pretty much "JBJ bumps into some awful evil, has to solve the evil, the B-plot has hijinks ensue, everything is solved and they laugh at the end". Keep the titles in the main episode article, but the plots are absolutely useless into having any understanding about the show. Nate • (chatter) 13:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is pretty standard to have a separate episode list outside of the main show article if there are a large amount of episodes. Please check the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage task force page for further information on these types of episode lists. Aoba47 (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of episode list articles on other shows does not automatically mean that every show should have one, and really there should be a reliable independent source suggesting that a list of episodes is notable enough for a stand alone list. TV.com would not qualify, as user-generated content, neither would IMDB. I would say the threshold for inclusion should be lower for an article such as this than it would for other things, (i.e. the show is notable, so a list of episodes is a reasonable offshoot). In this case however I don't think the show is important enough historically/encyclopedicly enough to warrant a list article. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the list is too long to comfortably fit in the article, and since the show is considered notable, there's no reason I can see why not the have the list, since someone went to the trouble to create it already. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Abdalla

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

Delete sources for this page either just provide more promotional information about the subject, or are from sources that are close to or influence by the subject. The information available about the subject amounts to little more than a collection of awards and congratulatory mentions. [User:Coherbia|Coherbia]] (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article claims notability but the promotional information has written on article. if article improve and remove the promotional information so Keep, current article is not eligible for Wikipedia. for current article DELETE.آریانا فغان (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whilst acknowledging the multiple issues with the page, person clearly meets and passes GNG as CEO of a bank which is a joint venture between Egypt's Central Bank and Kuwait's sovereign wealth fund, set up in 1964, and personally sits on an advisory board on London's Stock Exchange. Improvements required, but keep for sure. --Simone2049 08:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There need to be more sources other than internationalbanker.com, but there appear to be some out there. https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/01/10/1286540/0/en/Arab-African-International-Bank-wins-two-awards-from-World-Finance.html http://capital.report/view-resource.aspx?id=3936 http://businessweekme.com/2017/02/21/hassan-abdalla-ceo-arab-african-international-bank-aaib/ https://www.globalbankingandfinance.com/banking-in-egypt/ Hence: WP:GNG and WP:SOFIXIT for the article. Ross-c (talk)
Delete: Does not meet WP:ANYBIO; coverage is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. Created by a SPA (Special:Contributions/Fayed.yousry); likely UPE. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheollima Civil Defense

AfDs for this article:

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

Same concerns as the previous AfD just six months ago: not notable, possibly a hoax. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as last time. Bondegezou (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit Hakimani Centre

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

fails WP:GNG, seems to be part of the Hekima University College. No independent notability. The Banner talk 09:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 09:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 09:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed, leaning delete - The sources are almost all either: Primary (off their own site), primary/inherently biased (JEA, Secretariate), mention (Barometer). Against that isn't an enormous amount: KTN, lots of Daily Nation pieces, but they seem to have issues regarding reliability; some citing for their work in several books/articles (e.g. Climate Change and food security; Shared Waters, Shared Opportunities). However this seems fairly minimal. If someone better up on measuring reliability could answer regarding Daily Nation, given how many pieces they have (though some of these are also mentions).

Their actions are also supposed to be "It is involved in research, training, consultancy, advocacy, social action, and the print and broadcast media" and there seems to be distinct dearth of sources to back up each aspect of these. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is operated by the Jesuit province, not the university which merely hosts it. –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Zfish118: - I'm not sure your cleansing edit is particularly good form given the breadth of it and its presence in AfD - more likely for commentators to go find citations for uncited content then generate content afresh. I've not reverted since I wouldn't say I have suitable technical grounds to do so, and doing so just to lock it down to aid my viewpoint on preserving articles would be poor. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it would survive AfD in it prior form; there was far to much Original Research regarding the activities (phrases like 'its activities may be inferred from its website', etc). As a reasonably sourced stub focused on the history of the organization, it stands a chance. However, I do not feel it is worth my effort to carefully edit an article that may be deleted anyways. –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Gir

AfDs for this article:

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

Seriously.. this is a promotional BLP.. I found coverage on the subject in the Indian newspapers and news website but most of them are gossip articles and the coverage is mention in passing and namecheck type of stuff. Found nothing in-detail or significant coverage which can help us write a proper encyclopedia bio on the subject. Press coverage is largely due to his work with the prominent Indian film personalities so Notability is not inherited applies here. The bio was previously created by the subject and was deleted via AfD so I assume the subject is back again and is very much behind this promotional BLP. (note: A SPA created this article) Saqib (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article about a fitness coach, promotional in tone (going extra miles, etc.). Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from working for clients. I don't know how close this is to the earlier AfDed article (which had been heading for a delete decision before its speedy deletion) but the arguments there are equally applicable to this instance. A man with a job, with no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is clearly promotional in tone, but that's WP:SOFIXIT. There is coverage of Gir himself. https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/bollywood/140816/meet-ranbir-kapoors-new-fitness-trainer.html https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/karan-johar-is-disciplined-ranbir-kapoor-lied-about-workouts/articleshow/62141460.cms https://www.tatacliq.com/que/rana-daggubati-workout-secret/ https://www.pressreader.com/india/health-nutrition/20170601/282132111399704 http://www.timesnownews.com/entertainment/news/bollywood-news/article/he-would-down-a-few-drinks-and-lie-trainer-kunal-gir-exposes-reluctant-gym-goer-ranbir-kapoor/180434 WP:GNG. These articles discuss/interview Gir himself, so not just inherited notability. Ross-c (talk) 07:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We clearly differ in our assessments of these articles, but for me they are about Ranbir Kapoor, Karan Johar and Rana Daggubati. Would any of these have been published without being hung on the peg of the celebrity, for example if the subject of the article was prepared to reveal the gym regimes of Joe Bloggs and John Doe? For me, coverage regarding professional clients sits under WP:NOTINHERITED. AllyD (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- Per AllylD.No evidence of independent coverage and is associated with clients.Typical semi-spam entertainment-interview stuff, which bears semblance to paid-promotion/coverage, as has been discussed multiple times at ITNB.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 09:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Y. N. Murali

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

Has not received coverage in independent reliabl esources to satisfy WP:CREATIVE or WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has worked as cinematographer for multiple significant films. I note that there are entries for a lot of other cinematographers on wiki, and hence this role appears to be sufficient for notability. Ross-c (talk) 07:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Why not i am going to take legal action against for my contribution on wikipedia ? If my contribution on Y. N. Murali is deleted, I want to delete all of contribution on the wikipedia now. I am not desktop editor like you. Gnuismail (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- I note that other crap exists.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per nom.I failed to retrieve any significant local coverage barring a single interview in a vernacular film-magazine of questionable editorial integrity.~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- // significant local coverage // , So i need to arrange some local paid media news about him ? Gnuismail (talk) 05:10, 17 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 06:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jayaditya Kang

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

No coverage to indicate WP:NACTOR is met. SmartSE (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. samee converse 09:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, an article with so many claims to notability but there are no independent sources to back them up. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 16:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bhausaheb Shinde

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

The references in this article must be the most egregrious collection of pointless floor-sweepings I have ever seen. Those that are not one-sentence blurbs are about the movie, not the actor, and three of those have the identical (Marathi) text. Can't find anything more substantial. Appears to fail WP:NACTOR. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Numerous sources have been offered, but there's been very little actual discussion. Sandstein 06:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quek See Ling

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

While she is a published author, I can find nothing to support a claim that she passes either WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. If someone with skill in Chinese can validate sources, be happy to withdraw the nomination. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per analysis

Do let me say this is not China related discussion but Singapore. I am a Native Chinese Speaker with Both English and Chinese as my first language. I will try to analyse this article

Poetry Collections
Gaining While Losing (《得不到你时得到你》) (Written and Illustrated by Quek See Ling) (Singapore: Self-Publishing, 2017) ISBN 978-981-11-2387-0
(Search per NLB - National Library Board catalogue - available in all public, regional, reference libraries under NLB, one on loan currently)
When Your Muse Is Stuck in Traffic (《当你灵感塞车》) (Singapore: Self-Publishing, 2016) ISBN 978-981-09-8872-2
(Same)
Bulletproof, Yet How Could We Embrace (《穿着防弹衣的我们怎么拥抱》) (Singapore: Self-Publishing, 2015) ISBN 978-981-09-4045-4
(Same, note it is even in https://www.nlb.gov.sg/Research/PublicationSG.aspx - PublicationSG is the National Library's collection of our nation's published heritage. There are more than one million items collected. Topics span the diverse fields of literary and visual arts, business, social sciences and humanities. - intro by NLB, statutory board under Singapore Ministry of Culture, Communication and Youth)
Walking Me on Me (《我走在我之上》) (Singapore: Self-Publishing，2014) ISBN 978-981-09-1287-1
(Same note also on publicationSG)

Historical Books
《致读者：新加坡书店故事1881-2016》 (One of the five contributors and editors) (Singapore: Chou Sing Chu Foundation, 2016) ISBN 978-981-09-8944-6
(Same note also on publicationSG)
Passage of Time: Singapore Bookstore Stories 1881-2016 (One of the Five Contributors and Editors) (Singapore: Chou Sing Chu Foundation, 2016) ISBN 978-981-09-8945-3
(Same note also on publicationSG)

Sources
郭诗玲〈诗人简介〉，郭诗玲《我走在我之上》（新加坡：自行出版，2014）
Translated - autobio - not reliable
〈郭诗玲〉，王润华等编《新加坡华文文学五十年》（新加坡：八方文化创作室，2015）
Translated - autobio - not reliable
〈新诗19首简介〉，鸿鸿主编《卫生纸+》（第31期）（台北：黑眼睛文化事业有限公司，2016年4月），页6
Translated - 2nd party coverage - not really reliable IMO
鸿鸿〈你真的算过鸡兔同笼的脚吗？——诗集《得不到你时得到你》与郭诗玲现象〉，封德屏总编辑《文讯》（第381期）（台北：文讯杂志社，2017年7月），页128-129
Translated - 2nd party coverage - not really reliable IMO
〈青年诗人郭诗玲新书分享会〉，《联合早报》，副刊第5版（新加坡，2017年6月30日）
Translated - 2nd party coverage - reliable due to this being the mainstream media newspaper
陈宇昕报道〈后真相时代：诗歌能起怎样的作用？——访台湾诗人鸿鸿与许悔之〉，《联合早报》，副刊头版（新加坡，2017年4月3日）
Translated - 2nd party coverage - reliable due to this being the mainstream media newspaper
赵琬仪报道〈“早报书选2016”最后一场座谈会：希望书店与读者继续相恋〉，《联合早报》，副刊第5版（新加坡，2017年5月16日）

〈2016年《联合早报》书选〉，《联合早报》，副刊第8版（新加坡，2017年1月8日）

Translated - 2nd party coverage - reliable due to this being the mainstream media newspaper

Awards
2017：Booklist of Lianhe Zaobao 2016 (《致读者：新加坡书店故事1881-2016》[Passage of Time: Singapore Bookstore Stories 1881-2016], one of the five contributors and editors) [7][8]
personal opinion - this awards can be given to any singapore author whose books are in bookstore

As per WP:AUTHOR

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
No
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
No
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
No, the award is insignificant
The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
Yes, for the publicationSG + all the works are in the Lee Kong Chian Reference Library - https://www.nlb.gov.sg/About/LeeKongChianReferenceLibrary.aspx, I will say it meet

Since WP:AUTHOR met, i don't have to go into WP:GNG where it will meet as reliable secondary sources cited it which make it notable. (I use WP:RS as a guide but focuses on Singapore consensus created list of reliable source ([15], which the few sources is clearly reliable)

Therefore, Keep --Quek157 (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further recommendations - label as stub class and then some non related author can take it further. I will support a keep is based on the fact IMO meet both author / gng. but should the COI involved editor make it more advert like, we may need to block the user (no COI declaration) or rather just delete based on advert (CSD). The article needs major rewrite. And maybe chinese wiki may be more suitable but this is still notable here --Quek157 (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Fadul

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

No WP:RS to establish notability for this Autobiography of non notable musician. Page talks only about education. No awards, or major performances. [16] Theredproject (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Big Delete The closest reference in the article to a reliable source is a Russian cultural ministry piece. Nothing else is a dedicated piece fr/ a reliable source. The Portuguese language articles in the "google news" search tool block translation for cookie reasons. Ergo no reliable sources. The list of compositions is an annoying "inundate them with text" tactic. Out with it. !!!! Tapered (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tendency of self-promotion. The article was created by himself.Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete. But consensus that, if we do have an article, if should be about Mold (magazine). Sandstein 06:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LinYee Yuan

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

BLP on Non-notable person, who's claim to fame appears to be a magazine kickstarter. Sources do little to establish notability and a web search yields nothing significant. Polyamorph (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it would make sense to rename the article to MOLD (magazine) because it is primarily about the magazine, not its editor. Vexations (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree except I can't find significant coverage to satisfy notability for this magazine kickstarter either.Polyamorph (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Designo, Metropolis and Saveur? Vexations (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They give the magazine some coverage yes, but is it non trivial significant coverage to satisfy WP:NPOV? I would say no. Polyamorph (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Change the article to be about MOLD magazine (which all the references are discussing) and include Yuan in that article. Ross-c (talk) 08:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is about the person. Not the magazine. The sources might be about the magazine but moving to MOLD (magazine), a page that does not exist, will require a complete rewrite. Who is going to do this? Besides, what in your opinion makes the magazine notable? Polyamorph (talk) 09:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Mold (magazine) which is the main subject of the significant coverage (what there is) from the RS available. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sivaram Mony

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

While he has directed one notable film, that simply doesn't pass notability guidelines. And outside articles about that film which mention him as a director (none go in-depth about him), not enough in-depth coverage to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, one15969,

I had come across your submission of page SIVARAM MONY for deletion. I have added a new section to the page called the Reliable Secondary Sources. You will be able to find the scanned copies of published articles from 2006 to 2017 which are not available as online articles. These documents will give you the insight about the person and the information about him being published in the page. I humbly request you to go through this and withdraw your submission for deletion.

Thanks,

User:Southindianmoviebuff —Preceding undated comment added 07:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep references since added verify that this director passes WP:NFILM. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources is also now demonstrated. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Consensus was that this has achieved notability. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nataliey Bitature

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

While accomplished, and there are some brief mentions of her in a couple of articles, the only in-depth coverage of her is from the eagle.co.ug site, and I can't find their editorial policy, so unsure if it is a reliable source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World Bank also featured Nataliey Bitature;https://blogs.worldbank.org/team/nataliey-bitature User: Edith Violet Naisubi
Keep - Further to link on World Bank blog from Edith Violet Naisubi, individual meets GNG as both World Bank and World Economic Forum recognise accomplishments. Here is one of three links from World Economic Forum, which critically ends discussion on GNG once and for all, but pushes up need to improve the article: https://www.weforum.org/press/2016/05/africa-s-top-women-innovators-take-the-stage-in-kigali/ --Simone2049 07:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have improved the article and added several citations. Based on the current state of the article, Bitature passes WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Lonehexagon (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Mountain Hospital

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

Non-notable local hospital supported only by its own web-site. Mildly advertorial but with no trace of notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I clipped some sources and put them on the talk page. More sources exist, just did two. I only searched for newspapers in Oregon. Kees08 (Talk) 06:24, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to keep; the sources are there just need incorporated. Kees08 (Talk) 03:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak Delete~~Changed to Keep - may not pass WP:NHOSPITALS as no such sources included and hitherto none can point out sources in the criteria. By extension WP:GNG will not be met. Vote may change if someone give me good sources which henceforth there are none --Quek157 (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, no where to merge as information on the page is replicated at List_of_hospitals_in_Oregon and the page didn't give any significant (can be referenced) context. --Quek157 (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Quek157: As stated above, I put sources on the talk page, in case that sways you. Kees08 (Talk) 17:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08:do refer to talk page for admin (talk page for the article). The one cited in the main page is local press, I am solely base on the criteria, WP:NHOSPITALS, "A single author or publisher counts as only one source, regardless of the number of publications by this person. Routine coverage and passing mentions (such as "The victim was taken to E. Normous Medical Center" or "Dr Smith of Smallville Hospital, said...") do not count. Nearly all hospitals, regardless of size, and most medical clinics and related organizations will have been the subject of at least one in-depth article in their local newspaper. In practice, large, regional hospitals will almost always meet all of these standards, but some smaller hospitals and many clinics will not. Hospitals that do not meet all parts of this standard do not qualify for a stand-alone article, and should instead be described in a section on healthcare or emergency services in their hometown articles or parent organization, with suitable redirects from the hospital's name. Additionally, if the independent sources available to you would not permit you to write more than one or two paragraphs, then it may be preferable to add that information to a larger article, with appropriate redirects."
Source 1 - Associated Press (AP), Source 2 - AP. Therefore based on the sentence, a single publisher counts as only one source, we have one independent source. For the one cited in the article,should not be counted as it is a primary source. Criteria 2 / 3 met but criteria 1 does not. One more source I will change to keep based on WP:NHOSPITALS. IMO, based on WP:GNG, I think it meet but since there is such a specific criteria (which a wikiproject had discussed in depth Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hospitals#Notability, I see no reason to void. The entire article just need one other good (inserted:third party) source which ~~cover in depth~~ to save it, please find if can. I am never prone delete if you see my Afds. Sadly and regretbly so still weak delete. Quek157 (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For admin, no need talk pages, sources I clipped here Clipped some sources for this:source 1 (Source 1) source 2 (Source 2). --Quek157 (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC) (Modified --Quek157 (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

I think I have covered your concerns now. Kees08 (Talk) 21:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me, I don't have this on watch. Thanks a lot. Not my requirement but community ones, which are made via consensus. I also have articles which CSD tagged due to not meeting. Yes, I guess the one via Oregon county will finally meet criteron 1. Change vote to Keep via meeting WP:NHOSPITALS. --Quek157 (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC). Additional note: Ref 2 is what that swung my vote. A county source is not directly the hospital but do note that the hospital Board of Directors are elected by the county, but we shall not dig so deep as prima facie case of notablity is there. And jsut curious what is "large bore MRI machine".--Quek157 (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Navayne

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

per Mikepals:Having an IMDB page does not meet notability requirements, and the rest of the article lacks sources. 01:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, google news is showing some articles of this quality [17] [18]. Szzuk (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, had another look at the refs and they are just too weak. Szzuk (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blurryface Tour

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

Fails WP:NTOUR. The tour received some routine coverage, but not enough to constitute "significant". Nothing "in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms" as the criteria states. WP:GNG is also not met. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant coverage of the tour beyond WP:ROUTINE tour dates, announcements, etc. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

USBBY Outstanding International Books List

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

Indiscriminate list of non-notable writings, no claim to significance. Cannot see a category this fits in at CSD Nightfury 10:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 10:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 10:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into "USBBY," since it lacks any kind of independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 11:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gets annual coverage in School Library Journal, a WP:RS [19] [20] [21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkeep49 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "Indiscriminate list of non-notable writings", flippant statement by nominator. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Beyond the links above there is also substantial coverage of this awards in professionally (librarian) curated lists (e.g. [22] [23] [24]. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. But a new article about the company could probably be created. Sandstein 06:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle-Gro AeroGarden

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

This article is about a non-notable product - a line of indoor garden pots. None of the references are really about the pots themselves, except for the Yahoo Voices link (a blog post? "10 Tips for Growing Plants in an Aerogarden") which isn't a WP:RS. The other references are about the company that makes the pots; but even those are either non-independent (company website, press releases, etc.) or are routine coverage in minor niche publications. So even if one were to consider the article to be about the company rather than one of its products, the company fails WP:CORPDEPTH as well. Peacock (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I found a couple of refs on google, those in the article aren't up to much, [25] [26]. Szzuk (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to AeroGarden, the article should be refocused to be about the (probably notable) company, rather than the plant pots that it makes. Fish+Karate 13:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet new and improved WP:NCORP; likely UPE. Let's not encourage spammers by keeping their articles. If this company is indeed notable (of which I'm not convinced), then a volunteer editor will create an article in due time. There's no hurry to get to such a state, however. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. The one review in PC Mag is valid (the other one isn't), but that's just one product review. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. So Why 09:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ferhat Ozcep

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was deleted in 2011 and the reasons for deletion still apply. There are no independent sources covering his life or career; his publication record, with an h-index of 7, is still not enough to satisfy WP:PROF, and he does not meet any of the other criteria. As before, it was created by a single-purpose editor, so it is probably self-promotion. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't it be named Ferhat Özçep.--GlobalSecretary (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Searching with "Ferhat Özçep" I found news coverage including him. I also found books by him are for sale in major Turkish book retailers. He also appears to be well known in the field of geo-Technics. Perhaps User:Nedim_Ardoğa, who is a Turkish engineer himself can look at this.--GlobalSecretary (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If all the sources are in Turkish, it will be very hard for most users to verify it. Perhaps someone should properly source the Turkish article first - all it has is links to his faculty web pages. I'll ping @Nedim Ardoğa for input. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.An academic with so many books [27] is certainly notable. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having authored several books is an achievement, but it isn't enough to satisfy WP:NPROF. There needs to be some evidence that they have been widely used or cited. The Google Scholar page that I link to above doesn't support that. For example, it shows zero citations for Jeofizik ve Tarihsel Gelişimi (Geophysics and its Historical Development). It would help if you could find some sources that discuss his work. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United States imperialism along the border

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

This article is essentially a school essay. It was an AfC that should not have been accepted. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not follow the Wikipedia rule of 'neutral' writing. Vwanweb (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is is clearly an essay (we even get a conclusion!), however with WP:NPOV, unlike the other primary policies, neutrality breaches are supposed to be fixed by editing. Other editors have, over the years, occasionally dropped in to amend sources, so it's actually fairly minimal on the WP:OR or WP:SYNTH that are the other usual grounds to delete in similar essays. It could easily be reduced to something worthwhile if someone took a (very) hefty axe to it. However you would end up with content that is already covered in Manifest destiny, American imperialism or Mexican-American War, and thus duplicative. Those three aspects are already linked and considered in minor detail. Whether there is any benefit of specifically considering how the three aspects link together in detail (post-axe), I don't know. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. SportingFlyer talk 05:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We even get an odd map of the US that groups all counties with over 4% Spanish-speakers. Considering some counties in south-Texas have over 50%, such grouping makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valiant Premier League

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

Promotional article of local, non notable league managed by company whose article was repeatedly deleted for promotion. No independent sources, no evidence of notability. The only sources given merely mention the event [28] in classic definition of mentioning. Other were reporting general events –Ammarpad (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 03:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete didn't we just delete something else like this? SportingFlyer talk 04:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of the Northern Swords (A Tribute to Heavy Load)

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

Notability per WP:NALBUM has not been established. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Moved to AfD from RfD, where that discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 17#Tales of the Northern Swords (A Tribute to Heavy Load). -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Found one review from an Italian music magazine: [29], and a couple of blog reviews: [30] and [31]. I would not argue with anyone who thinks otherwise, but those reviews may not be enough significant coverage to establish notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to International Nuclear Event Scale#Nuclear Accident Magnitude Scale. More content can be merged from history Sandstein 09:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Accident Magnitude Scale

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

WP:DEL7: Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed.
The article appears to be either un-referenced original research or an essay.
two references are provided: [one] is an opinion piece published on "Physics Today: Points of View" (a popular and generally reliable magazine for the lay audience, not a scientific, peer-reviewed or citation-indexed journal), the [other] is a self-published study.
Following a Google Scholar and Scopus search, it appears that the author (David Smythe) is indeed an academic of Geophysics at the university of Glasgow, with a long research career and a few articles marginally related to the topic. However, I have failed to find any suitable reference on the subject of "Nuclear Accident Magnitude Scale". Patrick A Burr (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to International Nuclear Event Scale. 1. There are several references in scientific papers using the scale but these are what we would call "passing mentions", confirming the verifiability of the scale but maybe not its notability. 2. The article is not unreferenced nor is it "original research". Perhaps you mean Smythe's paper is original research or essay-like but that is not of direct concern here. A reference to an independent review article concerning the matter of these scales would, of course, be highly preferable. 3. The second paper does seem to have been published independently.[32] (But I'm not well informed on such matters). There are several references available such as this. Since our article International Nuclear Event Scale refers to criticism and mentions NAMS I think further mention there is desirable. However, since we (I mean I) cannot be at all sure NAMS has been widely adopted it may well not warrant a full article at this stage. Thincat (talk) 09:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Author pitching in. For the most part, I do not accept the reasons for deletion. Given that the INES scale has crucial shortcomings (e.g. no relation to actual damage outside of the nuclear facility), we really need to mention and to explain this alternative scale. This article basically supports the INES one by pointing out limitations.--Keimzelle (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Partial merge to International Nuclear Event Scale, per Thincat. This alternative proposal seems a valid facet of the scientific discourse around the INES scale and as such merits a mention. Not prominent or widely referenced enough for its own article though. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the International Nuclear Event Scale#Nuclear Accident Magnitude Scale section I just added to that article, in the criticism section. The limited sourcing suggests that this alternative scale may be WP:TOOSOON, but if that changes, the meat of the info is there and the article can be recreated. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Septrillion (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

South Nyack station

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

~~Non-notable. Unsourced. Can't find any sources. Article was created by a sock without significant changes to content since. Compare:~~

South Nyack was a railroad station on the Erie Railroad Northern Branch in South Nyack, New York. The station was closed in 1966 and was razed that year. Proposals have been made to restore service on the Northern Branch via the Hudson Bergen Light Rail.

to:

South Nyack was a railroad station on the Erie Railroad Northern Branch in South Nyack, New York. The station was closed in 1966 and was razed that year. Proposals have been made to restore service on the Northern Branch via the Hudson Bergen Light Rail.

~~and yet speedy deletion under WP:G5 was declined, hence the nomination. Septrillion (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Substantial changes have been made since this nomination. Septrillion (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Septrillion (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as nominator. The stats tool isn't counting my !vote for some reason. Strike if tool starts functioning properly. Septrillion (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd! If I strike it says no votes, and yet if it's unstruck, it's counted as a duplicate. Keeping it unstruck so it's counted. Septrillion (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note. As nominator, you will already have 1 vote in Afd. And I suggest you put all the information under the nomination rather than under discussion. In addition, it is not the number of votes that count, the consensus counts. ~~Plus, I think page creation protection for sockpuppetry may be needed if deleted~~ --Quek157 (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC) (edited as at --Quek157 (talk) 10:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC))(further edited --Quek157 (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC))(further edited --Quek157 (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

*Further comment Support Mackensen viewpoint --Quek157 (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate !vote struck as the tool appears to be functioning properly. Septrillion (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just take note that nominators for Afd do not need to vote, your proposal for deletion is considered a vote for delete already. Cheers --Quek157 (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there was a glitch in the AfD stats tool, hence the "duplicate" vote to correct it. Septrillion (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've consulted an Official Guide and South Nyack did exist as described on the Erie-Lackawanna's Northern Branch. As a disused railway station the topic is probably notable. An article is possible; compare Tenafly station and Piermont station on the same line. Those buildings still stand, though. In the absence of expansion a redirect to Northern Branch. Mackensen (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Found and added sources for its closure and eventual demolition. Weak keep; failing that, redirect. Mackensen (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment The Hudson River Valley Heritage site has this photo and a period postcard showing the station. It wouldn't meet my standard for retention but given that we've had people successfully argue that a station consisting of nothing but platforms and a location was notable, I expect this to survive. Mangoe (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: one more pic found [33] --Quek157 (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment nominator do you wish to withdraw your nomination as weak keep Quek157 (talk) 09:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Septrillion (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ravidassia/Ramdassia Sikh (Chamar)

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--Have you seen Ramdasia?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--As an implausible redirect-target, since the stuff's pretty well-covered at Ramdasia.~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment on Ramdasia they are trying to claim that Ramdasia are julahas but in actual they belong to Chamar caste.Ramdasia and Ravidasia they both orignated from chamar caste. Proof is punjab government welfare department website^[1]

References

^ http://welfarepunjab.gov.in/Static/Sccastes.html

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ma and Pa Kettle#Kettle farm set. Content has already been merged. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kettle Farm

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

Non-notable T.V. show location. Can't find any reliable sources. 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 00:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ma and Pa Kettle. The topic has received some coverage in reliable sources (example source 1, example source 2), but not finding enough to qualify a standalone article. The suggested merge target article has almost no mention of this, so a merge will improve that article as per WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as detailed above, this is valid content for that article Atlantic306 (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ma and Pa Kettle#Kettle farm set, per above. I just did a merge. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://welfarepunjab.gov.in/Static/Sccastes.html

[1]