Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 March	30 March >

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mildred C. Crump

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

City councilwoman, fails WP:POLITICIAN Rusf10 (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. City councillors do not get an automatic inclusion freebie per WP:NPOL just for existing, but qualify for articles only if they have a strong claim to being significantly more notable than most other city councillors in most other cities — but this is not substanced or sourced even remotely close to well enough to demonstrate that. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:23, 2 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) 13:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos M. Gonzalez

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

City councilman, fails WP:POLITICIAN. After nominating, I discovered this was already deleted in 2008, so I'm not sure why it was recreated. Rusf10 (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. City councillors do not get an automatic inclusion freebie per WP:NPOL just for existing, but qualify for articles only if they have a strong claim to being significantly more notable than most other city councillors in most other cities — but this is not substanced or sourced even remotely close to well enough to demonstrate that. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How did I know this would be someone from New Jersey as soon as I saw the words "city council"?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd Saad Uddin

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

Author de PROD without any reason. But still fail WP:NFOOTY Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY as he hasn't played in a fully-professional league or earned a senior international cap. He has not otherwise received significant coverage from reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL and also fails WP:GNG in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 18:57, 2 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 Ehab El Masry. There wasn't really any need to bring this to AfD; merges are best discussed on the article talk pages and obvious ones like this don't even need that; just go ahead and be WP:BOLD -- RoySmith (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ihab El-Masry

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

Another better and improved article about the same player (Ehab El Masry) is available. Ben5218 (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect the same player. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to current article, as possible search term. Giant Snowman 08:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above Govvy (talk) 18:49, 2 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom Lamm

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

Two reasons. First WP:BLP1E, and second, his "career" is that he was convicted of fraud. Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Wikipedia notability standards.Makro (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename (with massive trim) to Bloomingburg electoral fraud (or similar). Coverage of the individual does not seem to reach SIGCOV without the crime. The crime itself seems to be notable per NCRIME.Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this was a minor crime that got very little coverage. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - blatant hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roschfallen

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

Contested PROD. Another "article" copied from the micronation wiki. Essentially unsourced. Zero coverage outside of similar completely unreliable micronation websites. GMG ^talk 21:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roschfallen's article in both Microwiki and Miraheze and here in wikipedia are of my creation, being that I created this micronation. In addition, all necessary modifications were made so that the article was transferred to the wikipedia. Windhelm (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC-3)

Comment We can find no reliable sources for this existance of this micronation with the only search hits for "Roschfallen" being wiki mirrors for this contested article. Blue Riband► 13:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if this were a genuine nation with a land area of two square kilometers and a population of 200 that is independent of Brazil, I'd expect reliable independent sources to exist. A Google search brings up NationStates, a game; Google News has no information on this "nation". Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Huon (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -It is obviously a fake article (micronation) as there are ZERO sources, and its creator user:Windhelm admitted that much in his post above. Delete. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Looks like the above is all we need for WP:G3. GMG ^talk 09:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Article's creator states above that he is the founder of this micronation. No RS for its existance. Blue Riband► 13:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fatma Abdullah (photographer)

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

Couple of mentions in glossy publications, but on the whole not enough to pass the GNG. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete regretfully. She seems to be unqiue, but the sourcing is poor. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are a couple of refs which mention her but there is insufficient claim of notability, it appears she is a regular person. Szzuk (talk) 20:34, 5 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Spanos

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

Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable JMHamo (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. Would require rebuilding in total by non-COI accounts. This is a self-serving press release. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Been working to clean up the article, and make it look not like a press release but an independent encyclopedic article. Bitcoin is notable and has become an industry in the last few years. The subject has significant coverage from numerous news sources and other sources, though many of those sources were excessive, so I removed them, but will review and reincorporate. The article subject meets the standards of WP:GNG. Instead of deletion of the article, we should build a better article.Bmf777 (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Working to reincorporate links and cite sources in an appropriate way.Bmf777 (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. Sourcing is spectacularly weak. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see a "wall of cites" that mention him sometimes in passing, thus failing WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear WP:ANYBIO failure, no assertion of significance and no significant coverage has been added to the article in the past week.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:18, 5 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 17:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caagmuuddey

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

Another Somali "town" which isn't. Geonames says it's a locality, which isn't notable, and there are, as usual, no external references other than geographical clickbait. It locates to a bunch of fields outside another town. Mangoe (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not on this planet, therefore out of this world. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of Turlington Hall

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

Contested PROD. Local urban ghost legend. Zero sources anywhere. Sources in the article don't themselves appear to mention the subject even in passing. GMG ^talk 19:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero WP:RS sources, which student newspapers and ghost blogs don't qualify as. Even if there was legitimate coverage of a legendary ghost at UF, it would only deserve a couple sentences at University of Florida, or the much abused List of reportedly haunted locations. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, 2 refs in the article neither of which mention this ghost. Szzuk (talk) 20:40, 5 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zoee

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

Poorly cited article, with searches reveal not enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG, and they certainly don't pass WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New to article creation on Wikipedia. Could anyone help get this page corrected? Here is a similar page with very little citing that has been approved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_(singer) [[User:surfintheskiez|] 22:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

surfintheskiez, sometimes it's not the writing, but the subject. Harriet, for example, received a #14 song on the US R&B charts. From what I can see, Zoee has never charted anywhere. If Zoee hasn't made the big time, no amount of article writing will save the article. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Someone please add the 2nd nomination box. I don't know how. Thx L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing beyond a little local puff. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that the Australian singer is not notable, not yet at any rate. However, the title was previously a redirect to Zoe, so a redirect seems a likely alternative to deletion. This is a slightly dubious redirect from Eubot, equating "ö" with "oe", although there are plenty of other redirects from "Zoee ..." names to "Zöe ...". I couldn't tell whether the previous AfD agreed to delete to redirect itself or some other article in place at the time. Lithopsian (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to the source the singer does qualify for a Wikipedia page under category 9 requirement. (Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition.) She came 3rd in the singing competition for Open Mic UK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Mic_UK Surfintheskiez - citatation here: http://www.openmicuk.co.uk/News/open-mic-uk-2017-prize-winners#.Wr9_Iy7waM8 (talk) 01:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all ~~exploitative money making scams~~ battle of the bands are major. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The singing competition itself has a verified and cited Wikipedia page which I linked in my previous comment, so it is completely legit. Not implying anything, but do you have a personal feud or dislike for the artist; is that why you're rather negative to helping get this page cited? I am not trying to cause chaos within the Wikipedia community, and I really hope that I haven't caused any feuds by contributing. I am just looking for kindness and to help. I apologise if I have done otherwise. surfingtheskiez (talk) 10.32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence that notable. Martinp (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reappropriate as a redirect to Zoe per the original version; delete should only be used when you want to erase all iterations of an article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Might warrant a mention at Open Mic UK, but it's a big stretch to say third place in one age group of this competition establishes notability. Maybe she's on her way to making it big, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON for Wikipedia. Deli nk (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parque dos coqueiros

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

Nothing to suggest this is notable. Zero sources and unsourced for over 8 years. Practically no page views suggesting this isn't something people are even reading. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notorious.Guilherme Burn (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no refs, 9 year old article with 17 edits including bots. Szzuk (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sapiology

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

Not speedy deletion as it sounds like legit science (ology and all that, it just sounds like something there should be an ology for, intelligence), I just cannot find any sources. Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if legit, this article is merely a dictionary entry. However, the fact it doesn't appear in the Collins English Dictionary (though does appear in the Urban Dictionary) leads me to think it's made up; at best a recent neologism. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My impression is that this is an attempt to make an almost non-existing word appear like a well-established term that is worthy of an encyclopedic article, in order to pave the way for future advertising activities. --Anna C. (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Academic-sounding term that is not used in scholarly sources, and seems to be otherwise nonexistent. Acebulf (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place for stuff made up one day, neologisms that have had no significant uptake, or advertisements. XOR'easter (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Drama Service

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

Fails WP:NCORP which says "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization". I was not able to find any additional sources to establish notability. shoy (reactions) 15:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 15:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 15:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 15:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. HighBeam yields a substantial source: "Child's plays: All the world really is a stage for local publisher's works." Rocky Mountain News, May 9, 2006. Not enough by itself, especially for those with aversions to interviews as part of an article's sourcing, but suggestive of the potential significance of this publisher as one of the best-known in its specialized area. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence this meets the relevant guidelines, and little out there beyond namedrops and press releases. Ravenswing 18:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just wanted to mention that at the English Wiktionary a number of plays published by the Pioneer Drama Service are quoted, and this article is linked to in the references: see [1]. — SGconlaw (talk) 13:23, 17 March 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, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 17:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The one reference is marginal. True, it's fully about this company, but in a local publication of unknown editorial quality. Be that as it may, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources, so this fails NCORP by a wide margin. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Geocaching. Sandstein 07:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geotoken

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

The article does not provide any references, and already has a tag regarding lack of notability. There doesn't appear to be any secondary, independent sources on the subject. Mojo0306 (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Geocaching, no refs and not independently notable. Szzuk (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Geocaching - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Szamotuły Samsung half-marathon

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

Nonnotabkle local spoorts event Staszek Lem (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable sports event. Ajf773 (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, relatively low participation event in a small town, unsearchable refs. Szzuk (talk) 20:57, 5 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) 13:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James DeBello

AfDs for this article:

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

References do not prove notability. IMDB isn't reliable. Makro (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTLINKEDIN Acnetj (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, apparently does not meet WP:ENT. Search hits on GNews are all (or almost all) for the chairman of Mitek. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDB is total junk. It is the source of the false claims about Moroni Olsen's original name for example.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There doesn't seem to be much coverage on this actor but he did have some notable roles in Detroit Rock City and Cabin Fever for example as argued in the original AFD and was kept for that reason. Here are a few sources that address him in detail, nothing great, but some actors (including some notable ones) don't go out their way to seek out publicity. 1 2 GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 20:56, 2 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) 00:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oracle (AI)

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

Not seeing any notability beyond primary sources. Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another source of discussion on oracles. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11023-012-9282-2 Krunchyman 11:31, 29 March 2018 (CT)

Here is another one: https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-527621441.html Krunchyman 11:35, 29 March 2018 (CT)

Then I suggest we have major problem, how can an article published in 2012 be talking about a proposal made in 2014?Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Nick Bostrom was a coauthor. I will need to find out if he officially coined the term "oracle" in this context, or if he is just advancing the idea from some other author. Krunchyman 12:13, 29 March 2018 (CT)

And that means it does not establish notability, that needs third party (I.E. not by the subject of the article) coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete nonnotable triviality. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move existing content to Friendly AI. The MSM have one source for Yampolskiy's work and many tangential mentions for Bostrom's work on oracles but too tangential for much notability. Regardless, Friendly AI is easily short enough that content on superintelligent oracles can live there. I stashed a copy here if need be since deleted pages aren't accessible. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to delete it, then delete AI Box and the half dozen related articles that are no less notable than this one. User:Krunchyman 11:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is about this article, not any others. If you think they should be deleted AFD, but that question is irrelevant here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AI box has four strong "intellectually independent" sources (Yampolskiy, Bostrom, Chalmers, Vinge) while if we added Yampolskiy to this article it would still only have two "intellectually independent" sources. That said, feel free to address any concerns about its notability on that page; there's certainly a valid argument that it too could be moved into Friendly AI. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:54, 3 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. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nrk666 -- RoySmith (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cycloc

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

Spam article creates by a paid editor in violation of the TOU. I blocked the editor yesterday, and today a Lazarus account (last edit in 2008) came alive to remove the PROD tag. Not notable and native advertising, so we delete it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 15:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Post-declarations are not a get out of jail free card, and enough of us have been round the block enough times to recognise a blatant exploitation for money of our voluntary work when we see it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:08, 1 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erekosë

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

Non-notable fictional character. lo prenu .katmakrofan. (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not eligible for deletion per ATD and PRESERVE. Because we could merge and redirect this page to The Eternal Champion (novel) from whence this character originated, it will not be deleted. James500 (talk) 08:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but that's not how AfD works. There being an alternative does not rule out deletion, because making things into redirects is not always the right option due to the potential for recreation (redirects are very easily reversed or ignored)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is not correct. Redirects can be protected against editing. If necessary, they can be fully protected so only admins can edit them. As a problem that can be fixed without deletion, this falls squarely under the policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. As far as I can see, the permitted deletion criteria in WP:R do not include "might be recreated". This is exactly how AfD is supposed to work, it is just that the policies are sometimes flouted. James500 (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - We do not violate our core deletion policies like WP:ATD-M just because something bad might happen. That's assuming this is even a candidate for deletion, which is unproven and which I will address below. Jclemens (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Even if the nominator hadn't blithely ignored the quite extensive body of commentary and criticism about Moorcock's scores of interlinked fantasies, it is evident that, as James points out, the content should be preserved in some form. And that's even without taking into account the utter absence of any reasoned argument for deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Eternal Champion (character) as the obvious move for this non notable article, although the notability of that article is also dubious and you are free to nominate it for deletion later if it turns out not to be notable. I feel like they might both end up having to be merged into The Eternal Champion (novel)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Michael Moorcock: Fiction, Fantasy and the World’s Pain (book), Disguising Doom--A Study of the Linguistic Features of Audience Manipulation in Michael Moorcock’s The Eternal Champion (paper) are two independent RS, with a time-limited and nonexhaustive search. GNG is met, merging would have been a better option per WP:ATD-M regardless, etc. Jclemens (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notable per Jclemens. James500 (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'd prefer delete but can't argue with the refs noted above, there are none in the article. Szzuk (talk) 21:12, 5 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Fox

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable performer. Significant RS coverage not found. Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO. Awards listed are not significant; Grabby Awards and Men in Video do not qualify. Minor controversy does not rise to encyclopedia notability either. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He may not pass PORNBIO, but he meets GNG for the coverage of his firing and for the material in the "Out at Work" book about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). In addition to the WaPo article and the citation to the book which appear in the article currently, WP:BEFORE research would have turned up at least these other reliable sources: COACH'S FIRING PLANNED (Washington Post), The Fruits of His Labors (Washington City Paper), and Beyond Gay: "Deviant" Sex and the Politics of the ENDA Workplace (article in the scholarly journal Social Text).
I think the Post and City Paper about the outing and the two scholarly refs about ENDA are enough for our notability guidelines. David in DC (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no proper indication of notability outside of the controversy, failing WP:1E. The one bluelinked production company in his filmography lists no films there, and there are no articles about any of the films in his filmography. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails the notability guidelines for pornographic actors, and the GNG appeal just does not work in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP1E PORNBIO and GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of teetotalers

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

Collection of indiscriminate information. Very many people, including many notable people, do not drink alcohol. Not doing something is not only a very common feature of somebody's personality, it is also almost never a defining feature. Similarly we don't have a list of nonsmokers, etc. Sandstein 10:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This one is reminiscent of the numerous attempts to get List of bow tie wearers deleted. That one has been kept, in part, because one can specify that it is a "notable characteristic" of the individuals listed. I would support keeping a list of teetotalers who were notably so characterised - for instance because they had campaigned on the subject, or were outspoken about it, or were frequently held up in RS as an example of that lifestyle. But I fear the nominator is right, a list of people who just happen to have the characteristic is about as random as a list of people with shoe size 6. SpinningSpark 11:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. While this article is well sourced, the problem is the list inclusion, given a persons alcohol abstention is not exactly a notable characteristic (as mentioned above, no different than tobacco use or narcotics use per say). More specifically the problem is the way each entry is categorised. Here we have full time teetotallers (all their lives), part time (recently), dead ones, or replased ones all in the same article, this easily becomes indiscriminate. Ajf773 (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-sourced and a reasonable topic for an almanac, even if it's not terribly encyclopedic. It is bordering on indiscriminate, but that can still be addressed through normal editing rather than blowing it up and starting over. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After my first comment I was hoping regular editors of the page would come forward arguing the case that this was indeed a notable characteristic of the individuals listed. Or at least, they recognised the page had some problems, but please point out any entries that are dubious. It is now clear that there is no one curating the page and it has become a coatrack for every passing mention of someone being teetotal. I sampled the references randomly myself to check this. The very first one I looked at was John Ashcroft. There is nothing in the source until a passing mention right at the end. Not only that, it is a passing mention in a quote from his wife which itself is a passing mention in the article. So a passing mention in a passing mention. Looking at a few more, many of them are much the same - passing mentions. Plus, a lot of the sources are dubious reliability to say the least - gossip mag articles and the like. Cleaning this up would be a huge undertaking. So contrary to Power~enwiki's comment above, I think that WP:TNT is the answer in this case. SpinningSpark 16:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete To pull from a topic I'm familiar with, a good example of a good inclusion on that list is CM Punk, who has been straight edge all his life and made that a significant part of his personal life and onscreen character. Unfortunately, most of the entries are just not that good, and their abstention from alcohol barely gets a sentence of mention on their articles, if that. If someone wants to clean it up, I invite them to try—but doing so would be an absolutely gargantuan effort, and IMO not worth the time. Pinguinn 🐧 17:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and please ping me: Should this be a list of Temperance activists, past and present? L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks lots and lots of very notable people to include, such as Russell M. Nelson and Mia Love and I could go on and on and on and on. Then we also have all those Native Americans who lived in alcohol-free cultures (although not many are known enough to merit articles). How many Muslims need to be added to this list? My mind is boggled already.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 4 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harshit Tomar

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

The subject of the article does not fulfill the notability criteria for Music. It fails to satisfy the general notability criteria as well due to lack of significant coverage (there is only one article listed in the source that actually talks about him - but it is an extremely short report and it is basically part of a city-specific section of the newspaper). Uvarun2009 (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Double Delete, there are 10 refs, I opened them all, (3 of them spammed me - hence the double delete), 2 mentioned the subject in a trivial way, the rest were 404, unreliable, track listings or not related. Szzuk (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Candlestick Park. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Croix de Candlestick

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

there are references that this exists, but there is no indication that this piece of memorabilia is anything more than ephemera and not notable. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly non notable promotional item. Perhaps a few lines can be included in the Candlestick Park article but nothing more. Spanneraol (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Candlestick Park, where the current mention of the Croix could be expanded a bit. This was a significant part of Giants fan culture, as plenty of sources attest, and it belongs in an appropriate place in Wikipedia's coverage of the team. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Candlestick Park. Acnetj (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beau Pluto

AfDs for this article:

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

Even though Beau Pluto is a very promising artist, I must acknowledge that, until now, Beau Pluto has yet to achieve any substantial major impact that would justify a Wikipedia page. Hydrocolloid (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure promotion, no RS found anywhere.104.163.147.121 (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete relevance still outstanding Ligliney (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Majyūō

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

Contested WP:PROD. Seems to be another obscure Japan-only game. The contesting editor is correct that there are reviews for the game, but the only ones I see from notable/reliable publications are Hardcore Gaming 101 and Nintendo Life (which is the only review listed for it at Mobygames). The article on Japanese Wikipedia lists only two sources, both of which seem to deal strictly with a homebrew reissue due out this April. The Japanese title admittedly makes it difficult to find anything with a conventional search engine; for instance, archive.org's search cannot recognize Japanese lettering, and a search for the romanization produces 0 results. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep those two reviews in reliable sources enable a bare pass of WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've more often heard ten reliable sources cited as the bare minimum for WP:GNG. Look at it from an ordinary, outside Wikipedia point-of-view: Would you think that a subject that had only ever been discussed in two sources was very important?--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen 10 rs asked for, but have seen many articles kept with only 2 or 3 rs. Having coverage online in 2rs is a very strong indicator that there will be more rs coverage in offline Japanese sources particularly as other Japanese games articles reference reviews in offline sources Atlantic306 (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, think of it from a common sense point-of-view, not looking at past AfDs; I hate to break it to you, but we don't always make the right decision here at AfD! Yeah, there's likely offline Japanese sources with coverage, but WP:But there must be sources! is not a valid keep argument.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, 10 is definitely not a standard or requirement. Technically, the GNG just requires multiple - so two - while in practice, anecdotally, it seems like 4-5 is enough to sway people against merging/redirecting too. Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; English-language RSes demonstrably exist. I strongly suspect there are additional Japanese sources, though the game's title makes them difficult to find. Magazine reviews should exist, given that it's a console game. Phediuk (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep pr Phediuk (outside observer commenting since poorly attended AFD). Martinp (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teachable

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

This is an on-line education company whose article here tells us little more than that the company exists and has received some funding via investment capital. Other than those that document the funding, the sourcing here is either from the company's own web site or from a press release. My own searches found nothing else. The company fails to meet WP:NCORP. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. With ~$10M in funding, it's clearly WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry. Generally, promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 2 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technology of The Saga of Seven Suns

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

Unreferenced plot summary and OR, no indication of real-world notability. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Your typical example of fictional cruft. Not notable, per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Strikes me as a legitimate spinout from a potentially overlong article on a lengthy series of novels. Needs work, but that's not grounds for deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wolfowitz. James500 (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only keep comment fails to provide a policy-based reason for keeping, while the delete rationale makes a good case for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Life Extension Advocacy Foundation

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

I originally listed this for speedy deletion as grossly promotional and for copyvios. These aspects were removed from the article but the speedy was declined. I do not believe this organisation meets WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial independent coverage, only press releases and social media. The article creator disclosed their paid editor status as a result of the speedy nomination, but the article remains a free advertisement for what seems to me to be a rather grandiose organisation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cwmhiraeth, thanks for your commentary! I would like to note, that the part of your commentary related to the cited sources is not completely accurate. FOX News (reference №2) published a video interview with our Vice President Oliver Medvedik - it is not a press-release; The IDEAS.TED.COM publication (№1) is a full-scale publication too, not a press release. The reference №5 might be harder for you to assess as it is in Russian, but this is again a full-scale article containing several sections describing our activities, and citations from our President Keith Comito. In fact, there are no press-releases in our list of references at all, and the only self-reference is to our scientific research blog, which is legit, I believe, to describe our activities. The social media links lead to the external organizations' resources, namely, to the Singularity University Youtube channel (as they co-hosted the conference on aging with us), and to Kurzgezagt Youtube channel, as they had a joint project with us related to aging research. Again, this is aimed at letting the external sources tell more about our activities.

I hope that helps to clarify things. I am very much looking forward to your further notes, as this helps a lot to check if our page is good and to get more familiar with Wikipedia guidelines at the same time.

ElenaMilova (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and improve. --Davidcpearce (talk) 19:07, 1 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Panipat (film)

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

WP:TOOSOON, no indication it has started principal photography. Sources say it's due to be released December 2019. ... discospinster _talk 13:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy as its WP:TOOSOON now but may well be notable in due course. Suggest that it should not be recreated earlier than 3 months before release unless something unusually notable occurs regarding it. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable. But need some source to improve this article. Also WP:COPYEDIT need. Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 17:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - To be logical, there is no point in deleting it. It will be revived in a month or two or three, ultimately. In place of wasting time here, let's work on it. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The principal photography hasn't started yet. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:02, 2 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 will restore this to user space if anyone wants to use the material to write an article on Wittern Group, but there is a fairly clear consensus not to have an article on U-Select-It. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

U Select It

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

Not much coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see an article on a U-Select-It product from Coan Manufacturing in a 1947 Billboard magazine: [2]. A walking tour claims they are the same company. Being "the world’s second largest vending machine company" and being in existence over 75 years would be a plausible claim of notability, but I have found no reliable secondary references. Vending Times is the trade press but may have something. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename (aka keep, move, and re-structure) to Wittern Group. [3] is a bit fluff, but it's substantial coverage in a national outlet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and move to its parent company, Wittern Group. several minor articles in the news provide coverage of the basics of their claims of being a large and long-time vending machine vendor and some decent industry news exists as well. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename / rework to Wittern Group. The parent company os notable. I would do the changes needed but such moved during AfDs are frowned upon. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - this is borderline promotional. Deb (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a promotional directory listing with no sources. We should expect better. In any case, the subject does not WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see zero references, even after three weeks of discussion. Fails WP:NCORP in spades. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. More importantly, several weeks of digging, relisting, etc. have failed to find enough to go by (reliable independent sources with in-depth coverage) to write a meaningful article, so fails WP:GNG. Martinp (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Osama bin Laden

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

It's not clear that a separate criticsm article is needed per POVFORK - the majority view in RS is critical so I don't see notability for a separate article. Most of references in this article are from book reviews that unduly promote the opinion of certain authors. Whether or not this content or the views of these authors is due for inclusion should be discussed on the talk page of the main article.Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can I say per WP:WTF!!? Ok, seriously this is a WP:POVFORK and an ill defined one at that. If a separate Criticism section is bad form in an article, a stand alone page is right out. This article has been sitting around for years as a place to park a bunch of random comments with the word 'criticism' in them. It just reads like a dumping ground for sophomoric debating points. Jbh ^Talk 15:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Based off the substance of this "article", I still cannot figure out the exact subject. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random quotes loosely threaded together. I would not recommend merging this anywhere simply due to how poorly-constructed this "article" is.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. There's a point where "criticism of" really doesn't apply to someone who organizes acts of terror, obviously. Nate • (chatter) 21:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More novel would be the List fo People who Don't Critic bin Laden because He Was an ArtistE. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete About as useful as "Criticism of Hitler". -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT this rather poorly written WP:ESSAY covering the opinions of mainly one columnist. That being said, I think that there is actually room for an article on Salafi criticism (or other sources) on Bin-Laden that would be UNDUE on the main article (not all Jihadists think alike, and they often disagree on the find points of Islamic jurisprudence, something that is often overlooked in our main articles that mainly reflect the secular western view of these figures) - however this article is clearly not that at the moment.Icewhiz (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NSHM Business School

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

A constituent school of NSHM Knowledge Campus with no evidence of notability. Even if WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME would have been a valid argument (and it isn't), this is not an independently accredited degree-awarding institution but a constituent college of another. I tried to boldly redirect but was reverted, so I take it for the community to decide here. Muhandes (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN, no refs. Szzuk (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. lone keep argument does not substantiate how the sources indicate notability 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Daniels (actress)

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

Apparently non-notable actress, does not meet any criterion of WP:ENTERTAINER. She's had some parts, but so have millions of actors; there's no substantial in-depth coverage that I can find. The Arkansas Times mention is certainly complimentary; perhaps it is just WP:TOOSOON. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear notability is sourced.Makro (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makro, could you please clarify the nature of your connection to Daniels? You appear to know her well enough to have been able to take this photograph of her in 2014. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers I work in the entertainment industry.Makro (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Makro - Does this mean you are a Paid contributor? reddogsix (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. I work with performers. I am not involved in promotion. I have never been paid to create any article.Makro (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. reddogsix (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this article can be kept under GNG. Makro (talk) 10:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does this article meet WP:GNG? reddogsix (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was just asking if WP:GNG was right. I'm guessing it isn't so that answers my question.Makro (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. Actor has had minor parts, but nothing that supports WP:ENT. References are brief mentions or single line entries.WP:TOOSOON applies. reddogsix (talk) 11:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO. No real substantive coverage yet as far as I can see. /wiae /tlk 15:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John North (author)

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

Non-notable evangelist. PROD was contested at WP:REFUND [4] but the request doesn't include evidence of notability and indicates the article was written to promote the subject, which is also pretty clear from the text. Hut 8.5 09:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-promotion by an apparently non-notable bible teacher (the mugshot was uploaded by BadDude with the edit summary "My photo, which I am releasing into the public domain"). It's a common name, so searching for sources is not straightforward; there appears to be a Sydney judge of the same name, for example. It's possible that it was this person who spoke to 100 people in a Tiny town with a quiet family-oriented feel in New Zealand in 2011.

Note to admin(s): the first six revisions of the page, until it was hijacked by BadDude, probably belong to the history of John North (Trinity). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that "my photo" might mean "a photo I took" rather than "a photo of me", which would mean it's an associate of the subject rather than the subject himself. Hut 8.5 14:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that too is possible/plausible, Hut 8.5. Perhaps BadDude can clarify? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find insufficient sources to indicate that the subject of this biography meets WP:BIO. Deli nk (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search found nothing of substance. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I thought I recalled that Ambassadors for Christ was an organisation of which I had heard, but I find that there is no WP article on it. Searching the internet led me to Ambassadors for Christ International - US based in Houston, and a few other websites including this Australian one and this page, which does at least verify North's involvement with them. However I am doubtful whether we can have an article on their Australian leader when we do not have an article on the whole organisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Hazard

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

Non-notable author. SmartSE (talk) 07:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like self promotion. Possible connection with the author. Makro (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this will hinge on the notability of his books; at the moment, it looks to me as if Blood Brothers is more notable than its author. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Justlettersandnumbers: I've had another look for sources but can't find any RS. This was as good as it got and that makes it clear that Blood Brothers is by Elias Chacour with David Hazard. Am I missing something? SmartSE (talk)

No, I think you are right, Smartse – he is a ... well, whatever you call it when a ghost writer gets credited. I saw on WorldCat that the book is held in 710 libraries and has gone through 26 editions, and I believe that that indicates that it's probably notable; but that notability doesn't necessarily rub off on a co-author. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete further to the above, unless evidence is found that any other book of his has received substantial attention and coverage. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability on page, none found in my searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Newcomb and the Sugarmakers

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

WP:YAMB non-notable band basically advertising/vanity. Legacypac (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I cannot find any evidence of notability. The article itself consists mostly of quotes from the "front man". Google News contains a couple of hits, mostly just press releases or reviews of the new album. There is a substantial from the Seattle Times here, but I doubt there is enough there to satisfy WP:MUSIC unless somebody can find other refs.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Good show from Michig for finding sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chinatown (band)

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

Article about a band, with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no solid reliable source coverage. The closest thing to a solid notability claim here is that a more notable band recorded a cover of one of their songs, and it's sourced to a dead link of a Q&A interview in which the band were speaking about themselves -- but the only other sources present here are a discogs.com entry (which is not a notability-assisting source) and their own Bandcamp, and on a Google search the only other thing I can find is a single article about their breakup in Montreal's local alt-weekly (which isn't nothing, but it also isn't enough all by itself to get them over NMUSIC #1 as the article's only acceptable source.) In reality, lead singer Félix Dyotte has a much stronger notability claim as a solo artist after the band broke up than the band actually has as a band -- so he would qualify to get article about him, which could briefly mention and discuss the band, but the band itself doesn't really have any strong basis for its own standalone article separately from that. Also conflict of interest, as the creator's username corresponds to the name of the band's drummer. Bearcat (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Delete - Note how the article says that Chinatown was formed in 2006, but one of their songs was covered by the Stills in 2004! In any case, Bearcat as usual has done the legwork on this nomination and I am convinced that the band has achieved little more than WP:ROUTINE coverage of gig schedules and other small matters in local media. Also note that there are several other bands with the same name in fields from extreme metal to wedding songs, which surely doesn't help them or us. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that as well, but was having trouble figuring it out last night, so I opted to not say anything about it until I could say something properly authoritative. (The thing about a notability claim, of course, being that it's entirely possible to make a false or inaccurate one — it has to be true to get an article kept, obviously, but people regularly try to break our rules by making deceptive claims in the hopes that we won't notice the inaccuracy.) At any rate, I've found the explanation: the song's songwriting credit is to this band's keyboardist, but he apparently wrote the song in 2002 for a solo album he released before Chinatown existed, the Stills recorded it in 2004 as claimed, and then Chinatown recorded their own new version of it eight years after that. So the claim's not entirely false, because the song is connected to a band member, but it is definitely misrepresenting the actual story and thus doesn't actually count as a notability claim for Chinatown at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, great job with the research! If this band article somehow survives the AfD process, I will straighten out the text on the Stills cover myself. Otherwise, I also noticed your point on singer Félix Dyotte -- if he someday gets his own article, this band can be briefly mentioned as part of his forgotten early history. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough coverage of the band to establish notability ([5],[6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]), and also enough coverage of Dyotte's solo career for an article on him ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]), and these are from far from extensive searches. --Michig (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I missed a few of those sources on Chinatown during my search so I have respectively changed my vote above to "Weak Delete." That's because (thanks to some imperfect help from Google Translate) I am still not convinced that those various sources rise beyond routine coverage in which the band receives a basic intro to promote a gig, while the album reviews don't get beyond basic existence of the release. These happened fairly often but none are very deep. But once again I would support an article for the singer if anyone ever creates it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A band does not get over WP:NMUSIC just because some local coverage exists in their own hometown media, if there's no evidence that they ever accomplished anything bigger than just playing the local bar scene. And Dyotte qualifying for a separate standalone BLP, which I admitted right off the top that he does, is quite a separate matter from whether the band was ever notable as a band or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage I identified isn't all from Montreal. --Michig (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just one article is from outside Montreal itself, but is still from another city within the same province, and it verifies nothing about them that would pass any NMUSIC criterion. If you're going for "notable because they toured", then NMUSIC requires a full-fledged national tour, not just evidence that they played one show outside their own hometown but still in the same province. Quite literally the only serious basis for notability here is Félix Dyotte himself — and that's a reason for a BLP of Dyotte, not a reason for an article about a band whose only serious notability claim is that Félix Dyotte was in it. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think Michig mentioned the singer's notability as a side matter in relation to previous comments on a "what if" article for him, and is not using that as proof of the band's notability. Otherwise, Michig argues that the found articles on the band are significant and reliable, while Bearcat and myself argue the opposite. This basic disagreement can be built upon by additional voters if any more stop by. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Michig has found plenty of coverage, the concerns expressed above are valid but moot considering the coverage. Szzuk (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage Michig found (a) is almost entirely the local coverage that any band on a city's local bar scene would routinely be expected to receive in their local media without necessarily qualifying for a Wikipedia article on that basis in and of itself, and the minimal amount of outside-Montreal coverage he found doesn't support any stronger notability claim; and (b) verifies nothing about them that would constitute a genuine notability claim for a band besides "a guy who went on to become a notable solo artist in his own right after they broke up was in it". NMUSIC requires two independently notable members, not just one, before "had independently notable members" counts as a notability claim for a band; and it requires a full national tour, not just cursory verification that they played one show outside their own hometown. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think WP:ROUTINE applies to music articles since the guideline page is about events. The sources presented by Michig are secondary, reliable, non-trivial and independent of the topic. It doesn't matter if they are local coverage or not. They still meet the band criteria (criterion #1 of WP:BAND). KingAndGod 18:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE explicitly states, right in its own text, that it does not only apply to events themselves, but also speaks directly to the matter of whether coverage of certain types of events assists in establishing the BLP notability of people involved in those events. Its own stated examples include things like wedding and death notices, crime reports, accidents, viral phenomena and "local person wins local award", that apply to people. So local coverage of a local band who never accomplished anything noteworthy beyond the local does fall under ROUTINE, and does not establish permanent encyclopedic notability — if all we had to do to make an article keepable was show that some local coverage in the subject's own hometown exists, but nothing stated in that coverage actually had to constitute a noteworthy distinction, then we would have to start keeping articles about bands who got local coverage for playing their local pub, but never actually released any recorded music at all. Exactly none of the sources verify anything about the band that would be expected to get them coverage in an encyclopedia, besides "the lead singer went on to achieve notability as a solo artist after the band broke up". Again, the band can be mentioned in a BLP of Dyotte, if and when somebody takes on creating one — but nothing stated here, and nothing that can be added to it, makes the band independently notable as a separate topic from Dyotte. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I said I would do far above, I have straightened out the article's text on the song "Retour à Vega" which will help if the article survives this AfD. I have been watching this debate with great interest and my vote has already been recorded, but at this late date I will humbly add that quantity of sources is not the same as quality. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of twin towns and sister cities in Paraguay

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

This list article has no content. It was blanked on 19 October 2017‎ by User:Sapphorain because there were no sources, and it has remained empty since then. —Bkell (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment ~~Would it be better to revert to Special:diff/790071353, or to WP:A3 this? Either way, AfD doesn't seem like the place to discuss this.~~ Iffy★Chat -- 12:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that we have those two very different options is the reason I listed it here. —Bkell (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to revert the blanking and let this AfD continue. Iffy★Chat -- 14:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it is kept without any new source, it will have to be blanked again, and it is then likely that contributors will try from time to time to add unsourced entries. Another option would be to proceed as in the page List of twin towns and sister cities in the Republic of Ireland: when you try to edit, a template appears (" … Please do not add any new sister-city names unless you are also providing a proper citation to verify the new addition » ). But I don’t know how to insert such a template. Sapphorain (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 keep. No one except the nominator has argued for the article's deletion. That said, while the keep arguments are compelling, they aren't compelling. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Globe Rowing Club

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

Non-notable club. Speedy deletion declined based on the rationale "a club that has been around that long [since 1923] should have some sources." But alas, none to be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if for nothing else making the Guiness Book of Records in 1983 for the greatest distance paddled in a bath tub. SpinningSpark 14:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In general, I think you'll find that holding a Guinness record does not, in itself, constitute sufficient notability for inclusion at Wikipedia, especially when the record is for something as trivial as "greatest distance paddled by hand." WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but it's in a bathtub. SpinningSpark 19:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - and by the way, 60 miles is not a trivial distance with any method of paddling. SpinningSpark 19:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I probably would have cast an !vote for delete, but I like SpinningSpark's rationale too much.--Rpclod (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This club appears to have a long history and to have made a considerable impact on rowing in east of London. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple references are used in the article. The subject appears in multiple sources, and thus is notable. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 05:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would argue that the citations, though numerous, are not significant. Many are mentions in passing in articles about other topics, others are local coverage or mere results listings. Still others are primary sources, first person accounts of time in the club, etc. I'm not seeing that this coverage makes this a notable club. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yieldify

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

A directory-like listing for an on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is interviews, passing mentions, WP:SPIP, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Has raised $6 million in venture funding, which strongly suggests it's WP:TOOSOON for an article. The legal matter involves an equally non-notable Bounce Exchange, an article on which has been deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bounce Exchange. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 04:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 04:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article predominantly about routine announcements, funding and IP claims / counter-claims. The Parmy Olson item may be the best of the references and does contain some discussion of the business, such as its work on the Marks and Spencer website. However, I don't think encyclopaedic notability is demonstrated by that, or by IP disputes, or by the various awards listed: inclusion of a co-founder in a 10-under-30 list, an award at an industry ceremony (where the firm also sponsored one of the other awards), or inclusion of the firm in a fastest-growing list. A company going about its business, but not enough for WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very close, but falls short of WP:CORPDEPTH IMHO. Once you take out the routine announcements - most of which are about funding - you are left with Fortune and Business Insider. Note that the Business Insider piece is one of many that talk about it stealing code so I included all of those as a single source instead of multiple. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Essentially, any renaming, redirecting, reapproprating to another article, or nuking the whole thing and starting again can be done without deleting the article, so it is outside of the scope of this debate. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Herzberg

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

Per WP:ONEEVENT, this should really be redirected to the paragraph in Uber#Criticism under the Safety concerns, Pedestrian fatalities section or another similar section — IVORK _Discuss 23:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although this event may also be mentioned in the Uber article as part of Uber's history, the topic here is not a criticism of Uber, it is a milestone in the history of autonomous vehicle usage and this person has become notable because of it. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to IVORK - there is no intention of the author to criticize nor even mention Uber ride share service. This article was to record the event of the first known pedestrian - possibly bicyclist - fatality due to an autonomously driving vehicle on public roadways. The original draft of the article had no such references, but they were added by other authors. Karmakinetic (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet it was an event that involved Uber. So they should be mentioned. Wikipedia doesn't WP:CENSOR it's articles to go easy on particular companies, it merely reports facts. This is the same reason why we don't allow origional research to be done i.e. drawing your own conclusions based on the Google Maps image indicating there was a give way to cyclists spot. You can say "mediaorganizationX stated the incident could have occured due to X" but not come up with it youself. My origional reason for nominating is that the event is relevant to the liable party, and as such should be listed on their page (Uber#Criticism in the Pedestrian fatalities section). Elaine herself is only notable due to this, and doesn't require her own page due to that and that it isn't really as notable as the first ever pedestrian death from a motorvehicle. — IVORK _Discuss 04:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment note this isn't the first death due to an autonomous car, who was Joshua Brown (no article) in a Tesla [24]. Widefox; talk 13:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Johnpacklambert - content appearing like "newspaper" can be deleted if you can point it out. Thanks. Karmakinetic (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first fatality due to an autonomous vehicle might become notable if there is sufficient coverage, but the victim probably won't be notable. Either way, this is WP:TOOSOON. WP does not "record events", it summarizes other coverage. MB 04:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NB this isn't even the first fatality (see above). Widefox; talk 13:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a one-off event with very little known about the person. The event is already mentioned at Autonomous car § Uber and Uber § Self-driving car research, and I see no reason for a WP:CFORK. MT Train^Talk 05:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only precedent for including her would be the fact that WP has a page for Mary Ward (scientist), and even if we disregard WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Ward was notable for much more than being killed by a motor vehicle. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dom Kaos: there is not only Ward, but Bridget Driscoll, the first pedestrian in the UK killed by a car and Henry H. Bliss, the first American killed by a car. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Going along with this WP:OTHERSTUFF argument (one to avoid at AfD) - we don't have an article for the first person killed by an autonomous car (see above). Widefox; talk 13:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is already a significant amount of coverage of this topic, not only because of the Uber connection, but because of the autonomous vehicle safety debate. So per WP:GNG I think we already have sufficient notability here. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, could be covered in relevant articles instead. Brandmeister^talk 10:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic ONEEVENT, didn't even reach the level of BLP1 because in few years this man will be forgetton entirely in relation to this minor incident. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ONEEVENT. Don't even need to redirect to Uber. Natureium (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think reliance on WP:ONEEVENT is unsafe in this case because, due largely to the impact on the public acceptance of autonomous vehicles, the coverage of this event is escalating daily - you can see that by clicking o the "find sources" links at the top of this nomination. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEEVENT is the consensus, and we go by consensus and try to avoid WP:RECENTISM and WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Until there's secondary sources to say the lasting impact, we cannot say right now. To illustrate, an OTHERSTUFF argument (ie weak) would be that ONEEVENT was cited as applicable in the merge of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Williams (robot fatality) (subsequently the 2 non-notable robot death articles and the Robot article have got messed up). Widefox; talk 14:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEEVENT doesn't preclude this topic, it embraces it: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. Which is why I don't think we can rely on it as an argument to delete this article. You seem to be trying to invoke precedents too, by comparing this topic with maybe similar, but not directly comparible previous topics - and don't forget WP:IGNOREPRECEDENT. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not invoking precedents, which is why I flagged my own OTHERSTUFF as "weak". The day that someone crossing the road is an assertion of notability is when this place has problems. Widefox; talk 20:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please review the latest revision addressing your concerns. It is a biographical article about a former Arizona high school student who is notable for graduating and being a mother. Karmakinetic (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your description ^ has no assertion of notability, which is a speedy delete. Widefox; talk 13:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been re-written; the assertion of notability is now in the first sentence.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the wording here "notable for graduating and being a mother" . !votes need to use policy/guideline based arguments, or risk being disregarded. Widefox; talk 13:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the first pedestrian killed by a robot. If it would be deleted, then it should at least redirect to a page dedicated to such accidents. MathieuMD (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete del per nom Wikipedia:ONEEVENT, we're WP:NOT a newspaper. WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources, only time will tell as this is TOOSOON, . Widefox; talk 13:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Autonomous_car#Uber. There is no need for a separate article at this point per WP:BIO1E.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I believe this will be of historical interest decades in the future. This is exactly the sort of article which should be preserved on Wikipedia! There's plenty of precedent: Bridget Driscoll, the first person killed by a car; Thomas Selfridge, first person to die in a plane crash; Kenji Urada, first person killed by a robot; Robert Rayford, first North American HIV/AIDS death; and I'm sure there are many others. These articles are grim but interesting historically. (It could be renamed to "death of..." - I don't care either way on that issue.) Adpete (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adpete That's the problem with WP:OTHERSTUFF (an argument to avoid at AfD) - e.g. Kenji Urada wasn't the first person to be killed by a robot, that was Robert Williams (robot fatality) and the AfD of that article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Williams (robot fatality) was closed Merge to Robot (but there's been intervening edits against that consensus which I've marked as such and aim to get both correctly merged back into Robot). Widefox; talk 14:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF strictly only applies to an argument relying only on the fact that other articles exist. What I should have done is drawn parallels to these other events, not their WP articles. That is, the deaths of these other people pass WP:GNG; e.g. there are numerous reliable (non-Wikipedia) articles on Bridget Driscoll's death, regardless of whether her death has a WP article. So it's likely (in my opinion, almost certain) that Herzberg's death will also be of historical interest for a long time. Adpete (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the first person killed by a robot was deemed not notable Merge Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Williams_(robot_fatality). It directly refutes that this is notable per that consensus (exactly the opposite of passing GNG). The other articles have other merits, so aren't obviously relevant for direct comparison. A landmark accident doesn't make a notable bio per ONEEVENT/BIO1E per consensus. Widefox; talk 11:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:ONEEVENT is clear that there can be ambiguity on whether individuals should be sufficiently notable for an article based on involvement in a single event, and suggests that the event, rather than the individual, may be where focus should fall. But the nature of this event (i.e. the singular subject is killed in a singular event) favours an article about the subject rather than the event, IMHO. And although we should be careful about rushing to have articles on every item that reaches the top of the news, I'm pretty sure that, in the future, this individual will continue to be notable as an unfortunate first victim of a new technology. --PLUMBAGO 09:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except they aren't even the first person to be killed by an autonomous car (or a robot) which also doesn't have an article. Additionally, the first person to be killed by a robot was deemed not notable per AfD (see above). Widefox; talk 14:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The arguments to delete based on notability of the victim are valid, but article has value for incident. Rename and refocus the article on the incident. This article will continue to grow in importance and size. You can see dozen different articles about the incident over several days on reddit page for self driving cars: https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/ Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The incident is not the first person to be killed by a) an autonomous car, a robot, a car. Their involvement was crossing the road. The involvement of the human "driver" is also not central to this, it's about the car, worthy of a mention for that car, and in the history of car evolution yes. Widefox; talk 14:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Argument ignores the point that the incident has had many different articles written about it, everyday since it occurred as viewable on the reddit topic page. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources do not count for notability (primary being close to the event, too soon to say if this person will have clear secondary sources later on), Reddit isn't an WP:RS, that's just WP:RECENTISM. That's on top of irrelevant per consensus ONEEVENT. Widefox; talk 11:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage is going way beyond simple reporting of the event. Many reliable sources are discussing the event (e.g. IEEE Spectrum, Forbes, New York Times, Bloomberg), which makes them secondary sources. There is no question this event is significant, the only question is whether it should have its own article or simply be mentioned in Autonomous car. To me it's pretty clear that there is so much discussion, and this is such a (sad) landmark, that there is too much to be buried in a paragraph in Autonomous car, and so it deserves its own article. WP:ONEEVENT is easily addressed by a rename to Death of Elaine Herzberg; nearly everyone agrees the significance is the event not the person. Adpete (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A move to an event title is a minimum for now, then redirect to autonomous car later seems appropriate, as there's actually little to say about the topic once recentism is avoided and until we know what the cause is. I concede there's analysis - at this point speculation of the cause, including distancing of the Uber system from the others. It's still too close to the event. (The saddest part is this type of road death is the sort of crash autonomous vehicles should be helping us avoid - lidar per IEEE Spectrum). Widefox; talk 13:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Accident with death of Elaine Herzberg. As far as I can see, it is the event and its consequences that is and will be of interest, more so than the unlucky person. --RainerBlome (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and make into an article about the highly notable event rather than the individual. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't even have an article on the first fatality due to an autonomous car. (see above for previous AfD "merge" for the first robot death - also not notable) . Widefox; talk 14:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is the first person killed was somewhat negligent. Tesla said you must maintain control and he ignored that and watched a movie. In this case the victim was not a willing participant to a mad companies scheme to quickly achieve driverless technology. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That highlights how there's an arbitrary aspect in the determination of superlatives in scientific or technological progress, let alone their usage. e.g. in these "first" articles we have: a steam car, electric car, petrol, gas, diesel, autonomous mode, fully autonomous. Coming back to this, it also had a supervising "driver", and I'm not sure it's good to speculate on responsibility of any accident before its legally determined. Widefox; talk 20:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but consider renaming Does not meet deletion criteria at WP:DEL-REASON but per WP:ONEEVENT this article would need to be about the event that generated significant secondary source information. However, do not rename if and when editors are able to find information about Elaine Herzberg herself; in that case, keep as a biographical article, even if it will be another stub. In that case, the discussion should focus on whether this article should include information regarding the event or if the event should be separate. WP:ONEEVENT regards "whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." Deletion is clearly off the table. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notability comes from the autonomous car (and Uber), not the pedestrian that was unfortunately killed. What about WP:DEL-REASON 7. (PRIMARYNEWS = no secondary sources), 8. ONEEVENT, 14. WP:NOTNEWS ? Widefox; talk 11:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - OMG I can't believe the deletionists on this one! This is the first killing of an uninvolved human by a fully autonomous robot with the power to roam about at will in public, at high speeds, with several tons of potential weaponry at its disposal. We can only hope that there will not be thousands more; that this is not the first of a long and tragic trend. Demanding external references of notability before those references have had a chance to be established is premature. So are debates about the allocation of blame, though it should be noted that the pedestrian crossed an unobstructed lane and a half at walking pace and should have been visible to LIDAR that entire time. Please withhold deleting at least until a full investigation is complete and facts come forward. 72.208.150.248 (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An autopilot also fits that description, so no, not the first. Widefox; talk 23:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but consider renaming as per BrendonTheWizard, who correctly interprets WP:ONEEVENT. And I pray that this will remain one (or two) article(s), and not be the first entry in CAT:People killed by Autonomous Vehicles. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 07:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your thoughts and the outcome are aligned somewhat with the coroners from Bridget Driscoll's case. The coroner, Percy Morrison, (Croydon division of Surrey) said he hoped "such a thing would never happen again." The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents estimate 550,000 people had been killed on UK roads by 2010. — IVORK _Discuss 09:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just so. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 02:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking the added "pedestrian" in the category I am afraid it seems Joshua Brown (unnamed and buried in a paragraph) may have been the "first person killed by Autonomous Vehicles". The vehicle "just did not see" a big 18-wheeler trailer broad-side in the road and failed to stop. Otr500 (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on the arguments above for WP:ONEEVENT by BrendonTheWizard and Eliyahu S, this is clearly a notable event and is likely to result in changes to autonomous vehicle testing. The NTSB investigation is underway and I've rewritten/restructured the article so that it's more about the event than the person, and can be renamed to "Death caused by Uber autonomous car" or something like that. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not possible to know there will be long-term changes attributed to this today. That's entirely crystal ball at this point, and as notability is not temporary, that's not a good rational to keep as it's too soon. Widefox; talk 23:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Rename: Please see amended rational below; 1)- The content is WP:CFORK being covered in more than one other article, 2)- This is a supposed BLP yet the article is actually about a woman being hit by an Uber autonomous Volvo XC90 so lacks notability. Does anyone actually see a biography here? 3)- This subject fails GNG and is being pushed because 4)- other stuff exists even though it is being admitted this is a poor rationale. Yes it is frowned upon to bring it up "but it is true" makes it alright, 5)- Hype is being presented that: "with the power to roam about at will in public", which while adding sensationalism is not accurate and melodramatic. This editor surely failed to read the article as it states, "operating in self-drive mode and with a human safety backup driver sitting in the driving seat.", so let's stretch it out that a rogue computer car went mad (the backup driver was asleep or incapacitated) or otherwise had an AI malfunction and went on a killing spree. Wait! that is no more of a "stretch" than the OR: "This is the first killing of an uninvolved human by a fully autonomous robot with the power to roam about at will in public, at high speeds, with several tons of potential weaponry at its disposal. We can only hope that there will not be thousands more; that this is not the first of a long and tragic trend.". The next part of the comment "Demanding external references of notability before those references have had a chance to be established is premature.", is covered by WP:Recentism, WP:TOOSOON, and probable WP:Crystal, 6)- The Wikipedia:ONEEVENT is covered in two other places and trying to cover it as a biography (definition: an account of someone's life written by someone else) but in this case is actually only a snapshot of a point where the rogue person killing car ended the subjects life and the circumstances surrounding the event.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment View stats for the page are below if anyone is interested. — IVORK _Discuss 05:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have a article on Bridget Driscoll the first person killed by a car 71.169.158.86 (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF as to why this isn't a good argument at AfD. Widefox; talk 23:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person is notable. Centibyte^(talk) 16:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Please correct me if I am wrong: Of the previous two "keep !votes" the first is either a vandal (dif) or a vandal by hijacking. With no questions of concerns, just a revert, I think vandal. The second self-asked for a block around an hour after making this edit. Otr500 (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, note to closer should disregard all !votes that are incorrectly stated as a vote with no reasoning. Widefox; talk 23:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename - to First pedestrian killed by a self-driving car. This event was notable not just for being the first death of its kind, an occurrence that is the quintessential sign of Wikipedia notability, but this death also froze the self-driving car market, and the cascading tech selloff wiped out billions of tech market value, making the death even more notable. Interestingly, with the felony history of the driver, which I agree is irrelevant to the incident, this continues to have legs and will be litigated though the courts for years. Forbes' deputy editor of tech coverage wrote a piece about this.[[25]] Her quote:

There are tens of thousands of traffic fatalities every year in the U.S., and each is uniquely terrible. This one was historic. Herzberg was the first known pedestrian killed by an autonomous vehicle, a terrible irony as technology is being developed in hopes of bringing dramatic reductions in on-road fatalities.

My suggested generic title is more likely what will be searched for years from now, as we are doing now with the car crash and robot deaths, because the names will be unfamiliar. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~but consider renaming~~ Edit: I changed my vote to simply "keep" because of the continuing coverage on the person. I clicked through the sources and there seems to be plenty of ongoing coverage (this incident has been in the national news for over a week now) to indicate the incident itself is notable enough for inclusion. I think time will tell whether the victim ends up being notable. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to "Death of Elaine Herzberg". There are many reliable sources about the collision, however there is not much information in either the article or the sources about Herzberg as a person, other than the collision Pi (Talk to me!) 19:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: The entire article is about the incident. There are perhaps only two sentences or so about Herzberg or about the biography of Herzberg. This "bio" (of sorts) is presented almost as an after-thought, really. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current consensus

There is a very clear consensus that the event of an autonomous car hitting and killing a pedestrian, while sad, does not rise to the level of meeting the notability standards of Wikipedia:Notability (people) specifically WP:BIO1E for a stand-alone pseudo-biography that mainly just deals with the event. The continues comments concerning other stuff, has long been determined to be a bad argument for "keep". There are two actual "keep" !votes and the rest (keep and keep but rename) advocate, in some way, for coverage just not at this title. Some of the "delete" !votes have also expressed a willingness to explore this and I agree because there is currently enough national coverage for sources that go beyond the accident concerning these vehicles.

A dilemma: The article autonomous car is already pretty big and covers more than "just cars" and "Autonomous vehicle" redirects to Vehicular automation so either change a redirect or create autonomous transportation. These are just ideas but a Google "car" was ticketed for failing to yield a pedestrian righ-of-way so there are current and on-going issues that can be covered. I think, instead of battling over "deleting" the information, relegating it to a paragraph, or some "keep" closing, that would be against current community standards, and result in more "battles", that editor collaboration could resolve the issue. Suggested titles like Death of Elaine Herzberg (obituary) and Accident with death of Elaine Herzberg (a differently worded obit) still revolves around an individual death and not the news reported autonomous (or self-driving) aspect that caused the death. The fall-out from this will be more regualations, permits cancelled or re-negotiated, and more over-sight (the NTSB is involved), as the family has already reportedly reached a settlement. It will not go away as the "big" money has a lot riding on this from a financial point of view.

Anyone interested in exploring alternatives over battling? We can attempt a discussion. Otr500 (talk)

Is there a purpose for an article on Incidents involving autonomous vehicles? Natureium (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ Natureim: I am sure there "may be" because we are at the beginning of a very recent event that might have shined a light on some things. With all the big players like Audi, BMW, General Motors, Ford (through Argo AI), Lyft, Aptiv, Tesla, China’s Baidu, Toyota, Nissan, Volvo, Uber, Volkswagen, and Alphabet Inc.’s Waymo all "wanting to win the autonomous car rollout race", I am sure there will be many "future incidents. A brief look and I found so far: A YouTube from E for Electric analyzing the Herzberg video, and questioning what went wrong with the state-of-the-art navigation system. Waymo CEO made a statement: "We're very confident that our car could have handled that situation." Another YouTube shows a Tesla failed 3 times to identify and avoid an object. Reuters reported that in September 2017 GM's self-driving cars were involved in six accidents and 13 crashes in California in 2017. A spokeswoman for GM stated, "All our incidents this year were caused by the other vehicle". Waymo vehicles had three crashes in 2017. NOTE: California is the only state that requires reports on autonomous vehicle accidents and there have been 43 so far. Otr500 (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Wikipedia:Notability (people) is not met here, however I think that WP:EVENT is satisfied. Because the event is recent it's difficult to tell whether WP:LASTING is going to be satisfied however I would predict it will be. There is enough content in the article about different aspects of the event (which are reliably sourced) for me to be comfortable that WP:DEPTH is satisfied. If we are going to keep the article based on event notability then renaming makes sence Pi (Talk to me!) 19:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Pi: I agree (with you and many others) the event is notable. The tragedy involving Elaine Herzberg has certainly brought about national attention on the subject of autonomous cars and testing. I have found ample sources with many more to likely come. Look at the video above where Tesla failed 3 times to identify and avoid an object. It just did not see what was visible as it seems the case with the Uber and Herzberg. There are world-wide considerations such as The Netherlands, China and Switzerland have been testing electric driverless shuttles with capacities of up to nine people, as well as full-sized driverless buses. I had not heard anything concerning information on AV's from China. A consideration is if there should be a dedicated article on "just" the Uber and Herzberg incident or can this be part of an article that will be more than just a career start article? If there is enough collaboration consensus needs to decide this as well as a title because a pseudo-biography obituary is not the answer as can be plainly seen by the !votes. Otr500 (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a new List of people who died in autonomous vehicle collisions. Similar to List of people who died in traffic collisions. 174.30.113.88 (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ User talk:174.30.113.88: that is an option but at this time how many people would be on such a "list"? Otr500 (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There would be two entries on the list. This person, and the driver who died in a Tesla mentioned above (Joshua Brown). It's a bit limited to just list deaths, listing injuries as well would be a good idea. 86.186.68.10 (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly [26] as well. And presumably there will be more in the years to come. 174.30.113.88 (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it seems Walter Huang makes at least three but a plausable solution, other than a list in the possible event of... we should consider options either event specific or that can include relevant material of the event and possibly others. A list article is actually a "list" usually limiting content. To avoid confusion "event specific" would solve the misplaced biography issue with a name change.

The current issue is that with the present title, according to policies and guidelines, as well as the "deletes" and those deletes that include possible renaming and variations of "Keep but rename" (even merge means stand-alone status as named is questioned), lean towards renaming. To prevent confusion of "no consensus" (if head counts are used over policy and guideline criterion) exploring possible names is a good thing. I just don't think a list would satisfy concerns and reach a consensus. Otr500 (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted clear vandalism that included derogatory comments concerning the current subject of the article. Otr500 (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on change of !vote above to Rename: Bear in mind as listed this is currently a biography. The nominator, delete !votes that indicate renaming and the variations of "keep but rename {that is not actually a "keep", because this AFD is concerning the title and a rename would change the title) gives indication that a consensus has emerged to rename. Sources and policies and guidelines give evidence of an "event" over a "biography" (and being a biography is the result of the majority delete !votes) and editor comments, along with research of sources, has led me to consider the event as notable but possible more so if combined. To me, at this time, the number of editors weighing in advocating or suggesting the content is acceptable, just not at this title, and the amount of current sourcing indicates that there is also notability with the multitude of issues concerning self-driving/autonomous vehicles (cars) that make it "worthy of notice". Otr500 (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested names

Without listing all the suggestions one provided by @Natureium:: Incidents involving autonomous vehicles, has potential to offer substancial coverage of the current event while allowing other issues and events to be included and at the same time offer a solution to rename this away from a "one-event pseudo-biography obituary title" that is actually more about an Uber self-driving/autonomous vehicle (car) hitting a pedestrian (as evidenced by sources), the issues, and aftermath. Otr500 (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about creating Incidents involving autonomous vehicles as a category? I feel like that's what people are actually looking for when they're researching this type of thing, but I think an article would quickly become too long if all incidents were listed and detailed on a single page. I think it's better to keep the individual incidents separate, so they can be fully documented. I think articles like this should be renamed Accident with death of PERSON or something similar if that's the only thing notable about the person. If they're notable enough for their own entry, make the page PERSON and create a redirect to their page of Accident with death of PERSON, and list the redirect in the category. I don't think we should lump them all incidents together on one page when it's very likely there will soon be tons of them. Lonehexagon (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! Ideas are always good. My issue with an opinion of anything to do with the article Uber is that it is not written "like" an advertisement to me it is an Uber advertisement. The accident, that just may not end up considered that at all, has brought the many other issues to national attention. There are very possibly dangerous problems with the software. The Uber article has a Criticism section with subsections on "Dynamic pricing", "Protests", "Travel ban, taxi strike, and related protests", etc..., but nothing on "the accident". There is a Safety concerns section with nothing on the navigation software issues. A "Lawsuits" subsection fails to consider that a lawsuit over 'the accident' was settled but family members have obtained council. This tragic "accident", of a self-driving car with state-of-the-art navigation, including lidar, radar, and various other sensors, failed to detect an object (bicycle) and a person, when that is the purpose of the system. This "accident" is placed in that article under a History section and relegated as a paragraph of the Self-driving car research (really!!) subsection. We can assume all the good faith possible but this "stinks like a dead chicken". I understand the want or need to attach a personal name somewhere. It makes it "personal". I am not against that but we have been covering an event and not a person. I am not against this being a totally renamed article removed as a biography. Having these self-driving incidents fragmented is why things end up buried in a paragraphy of a subsection.

I am against the issues and dangers of the entire subject of "issues concerning self-driving cars/vehicles being buried as acceptable losses. If culpability is found then there could be something along the line of the Schlitterbahn "accidental" killing of Caleb Thomas Schwab. A difference there is that he was the son of Kansas representative and the tragedy apparently (can't tell from the article) occured in Kansas. Look at the article, the Incidents section, and content. Here is a current headline: Kansas water park executives charged with murder in boy's death, and another; Schlitterbahn, former executive both facing charges in water slide incident that killed 10-year-old, and yet more, Verrückt designers, construction company indicted for murder in ..., Schlitterbahn co-owner jailed on charges of murder, aggravated battery and aggravated child endangerment with many more. due weight and NPOV dictates if there is coverage at all it should be covered completely. We update articles within seconds on many subjects so why not these?

I was a "delete" !vote but the evidence is clear, as is consensus, that the current title violates policies and guidelines, and that there are problems. Maybe these are buried by corporate greed, biased editing, or just that on these subjects there is a lack of interest, but there are problems and they have been effectively buried. Maybe it is time for an article dedicated to these issues. I just know that "if" we can't find consensus for an acceptable title by consensus, I am going to attempt to get an admin chosen title under #11 of the Admin guidelines on deleting pages and not settle for a pseudo-biography by some "no consensus" determination. This is why if covered seperately on Wikipedia it should be something along the lines of Uber accident with death of Elaine Herzberg, that would be backed by sources, and if you agree I would back that. As it stands now, with the billions of corporate dollars involved, all of these "accidents" will be relegated as a necessary evil and the "cost of advancement". I wonder what representative Schwab would think of that thought? Some of the family of Herzberg found an agreeable price. Otr500 (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know if the vote has ended, but there are several articles for the name of the first person killed in a motor accident, pedestrian killed by a car, etc... this one is not different at all, it has even more sources than the others. Hervegirod (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I changed my vote to Keep without renaming (above), as there now seems to be plenty of significant coverage about the person. Lonehexagon (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT. It's clear that we're going to keep this article, so I'm not going to waste my time arguing otherwise. But, it's a terrible article as currently written. First, there's nothing notable about this person other than she was unlucky enough to be hit by a car. The article isn't about her, it's about the event. So, it should definitely be renamed. Next, this is a hodgepodge of sound bites from unreliable sources, mixed with WP:OR. For example, we shouldn't be doing things like looking at Google Street View photos and reporting on what traffic signs traffic say. And the idea that we're taking Google Street View photos and annotating them based on sound bites just boggles the mind; copyvio and OR at the same time. Just because a normally reliable source publishes a sound bite, that doesn't mean it's a reliable fact on which to base an encyclopedia article. The NTSB is famous for going off to a quiet place and doing their job, then releasing a report once they've completed all their investigations. Until they do that, everything about the accident is just crap and fails WP:NOTNEWS. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Murder of Nicholas Markowitz. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Rugge

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

This article was turned (correctly) into a redirect twice before being reverted by IPs and SPAs. Undoubtedly, the kidnapping and murder of Nicholas Markowitz is a notable incident. However, coverage conveys that Jesse Rugge is only notable for this single incident--a clear WP:BLP1E violation. A biography is simply unnecessary/inappropriate unless you can established his notability outside the crime. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Murder of Nicholas Markowitz (seems most of the content is there - a merge result is also possible if we really want to move over the petition on parole and Alpha Dog). This is actually not a clear BLP1E violation (due to extended coverage - e.g. his parole hearing) and since there is some depth to the coverage (and perp spinout is possible, particularly post-conviction per WP:CRIMINAL) - however as the murder article isn't overly long, and content here is rather sparse - I think a redirect is the correct outcome. Should the murder article be expanded and/or Rugge receive more coverage then this is liable to change.Icewhiz (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Murder_of_Nicholas_Markowitz#Legal_outcome where the subject is already mentioned. Not notable outside of the crime and anything worth mentioning about the subject can be done in that section. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qayderta Hadiile Dhuub

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

Non-notable Somali "locality". Mangoe (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) appears to have this place in its database, and NGA is a reliable source. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, no, it's not that reliable a source, as has been proven over and over again. It is not good enough to establish that a place exists on its own. But second, the issue in this case is notability, and by our standards, something it describes only as a "locality", with no other information, is not notable. "Locality", in their terminology, means a place or area which isn't defined by habitation. Our standards are not so low as to accept every word on a map as notable, and that's all that this amounts to: a word on a map. Mangoe (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not There. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is only really one source about this topic and it gives no information other than that the term is used to refer to an empty patch of desert where nobody lives. This is not enough to make the subject notable, for that we need the usual significant coverage in reliable sources and there isn't any. WP:NGEO is very generous towards places where people actually live but that's not the case here. Hut 8.5 14:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mirsale

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

A Somali well, not a town. I don't think wells are notable. Mangoe (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The sole reference confirms it's a well, which is not well. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, this well may well fail WP:NWELL. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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