The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Ivan Ulz

Ivan Ulz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Ulz lacks notability. The top google hit is his own website, which is also the source for the only reference citation in the article. The second google hit is this article. A check of the sources available above yields commercial websites selling his CDs, and zero dedicated articles, even in his hometown newspaper. And to quote the article itself, "Ulz did not achieve lasting fame as a folk singer/songwriter..." Ergo, delete. Tapered ( talk) 22:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Not notable. Acnetj ( talk) 06:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 09:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 09:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep - "zero dedicated articles, even in his hometown newspaper" claim is false - just look at the references! StefanWirz ( talk) 06:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Please note, the various reference links on this page yield no dedicated articles, as stated. The article's references are not used as citations. Interesting. The only reference that I could run down using Google Books, Steve Martin's "Born Standing Up," mentions him as the MC in a nondescript nightclub—not the stuff of WP:N. I'm also amending the nomination to quote the article itself! Tapered ( talk) 23:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - The gentleman is recently deceased, but I'm sorry to say that his notability is indirect at best. The article's main source is Mr. Ulz's own promotional website, which was an operation to promote appearances and sell merchandise. All of the other references are to books that are overwhelmingly about more famous people and which mention Mr. Ulz briefly as a peripheral background figure. Of his many co-written songs, he can be credited accordingly on those that were recorded by notable musicians, but he has received very little reliable coverage as a songwriter, performer, toymaker, etc. in his own right. Unfortunately he did not achieve enough independent notability to merit his own Wikipedia article. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 18:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. –  Joe ( talk) 21:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Mark David Lloyd

Mark David Lloyd (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

There are no WP:RS to establish WP:NARTIST. All the exhibitions are at vanity galleries, and many are 404s. The page on Saatchi Art here [1] is just a social profile **not** Saatchi Gallery, and I find no evidence of any engagement with the legit gallery. Agora Gallery is a known pay to play vanity gallery. Biennial Roadshow's ArtVenice Biennale 3 is **not** the Venice Biennale. And showing with Banksy and Caro is cool, but doesn't establish WP:N. This Bournemouth Echo piece about a mural [2] is the only thing that could come close. Theredproject ( talk) 23:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete Seems to fail NARTIST. A piece about him in the Peoria Journal Star, in the context of his works being included in a exhibition. I do not think this is a "significant exhibition". Also a quote in a huffpost contributor piece, but little if anything else. Hrodvarsson ( talk) 00:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 11:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:NARTIST. No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, no solo shows in notable galleries. Edwardx ( talk) 12:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete the association with Agora Gallery, a known pay to show gallery (" representation options starting at $3850"!) puts into doubt the artist's credibility. The existing sources amount to an attempt to con the reader into with puffed-up notability claims. 104.163.158.37 ( talk) 03:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 20:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - he's not shown anywhere important; his only connection with Venice has been the "BIENNIAL ROADSHOW". Bearian ( talk) 02:28, 15 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. –  Joe ( talk) 21:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Bappusaheb Bhosale

Bappusaheb Bhosale (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional article. Fails WP:GNG. Supposedly founder president of an organisation - founded in 1972, but he was born in 1977. Edwardx ( talk) 22:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 11:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 11:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The article claims nothing about him that would hand him an automatic notability freebie just for existing, it's written more like a résumé than an encyclopedia article, and it's referenced to a mix of primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in media coverage of other things, not to any evidence of reliable source coverage that is substantively about him. Bearcat ( talk) 17:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. Not WP:CSD#A7 eligible. WP:REFUND applies. –  Joe ( talk) 21:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

May Makhzoumi

May Makhzoumi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Not seeing how she is independently notable with respect to her billionaire spouse - WP:NOTINHERITED. Fails WP:GNG. Promotional article from a likely COI editor. Edwardx ( talk) 22:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC) Edwardx ( talk) 22:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Support per A7 speedy deletion. startTerminal ( haha wow talk page) 23:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 11:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 11:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. –  Joe ( talk) 21:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

BioCode

BioCode (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Vague substub. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 21:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Not notable. Acnetj ( talk) 21:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete The subject's lack of wider notability does not mean that it is not important in its host science, i.e. Biology. It concerns the naming of "all kinds of organisms, whether eukaryotic or prokaryotic, fossil or non-fossil, and of fossil traces of organism, that are established (i.e., validly published or made available) and shall govern the choice when names compete among themselves or with earlier names. They shall also, and without limitation of date, provide for the establishment of co-ordinate names within rank groups, for the protection of names, as well as for their correct form." ( Source) A world co-ordinated project towards having a unifying nomenclature in a major science is mighty important. The article, however, does a severe injustice to its subject: It's thrown together with less care than the contents of a garbage bin. And, since the BioCode project itself is still in draft form, perhaps the best way forward is merciful euthanasia. - The Gnome ( talk) 22:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 11:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

The TV Ratings Guide

The TV Ratings Guide (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Came across this one in the new pages. The resources provided on the page itself are entirely primary and from the website itself. A quick search on Google turns up nothing but the page, its social media, and some blog mentions. It appears to be a blog created for this purpose. Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 08:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 10:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Numerous credible sources outside of the site alone have now been added.-- Jonathan Joseph ( talk) 06:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I see more blogs and some twitter posts, nothing that meets WP:RS. -- Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 23:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Several actual websites, including TVBTN, the Observer, and Alexa. -- Jonathan Joseph ( talk) 00:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Various reliable sources, such as TV By the Numbers, have recognized the site as a notable source of news and content. -- Tvlover19 ( talk) 1:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. There are many sources to back up that this is a credible site. TV By the Numbers is a prominent website that also has a wikipedia page. -- Bob12967 —Preceding undated comment added 01:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The citations to their own site can be ignored. So can those to Twitter, which is not WP:RS. I looked at the others. Not a single one of them is actually about TVRG, and several don't mention it at all (including the citation to The Observer). Alexa Internet merely supplies web traffic analysis (and the three citations to it are identical). No independent in-depth coverage = fails WP:GNG. Narky Blert ( talk) 13:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I hesitate to throw accusations around, but multiple similar arguments all with very similar stilted grammar and all without reference to WP:POLICY make me think of whatever that thing is which separates my shoe from the end of my leg. WP:AFD is, of course, a policy-based discussion, not a majority vote. Narky Blert ( talk) 23:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• The sources don't have to be about the website, the sources prove that the website is used and viewed as a credible source among many popular and respected websites, and has reached a level of credibility and popularity, there's no reason for deletion. And all the sources do mention the site, including the Observer. The site is backlinked. -- Jonathan Joseph ( talk) 20:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Double vote stricken.

"The sources don't have to be about the website." The ones supporting notability do.

"And all the sources do mention the site, including the Observer." No they don't and no it doesn't. Narky Blert ( talk) 23:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

"And all the sources do mention the site, including the Observer. No they don't and no it doesn't." Yes, they do, you conveniently left out the part where I said the site was back linked in many of the sources. The Observer specifically linked the site at the bottom of the article, just like the site was linked and is on every other source given on the page.-- Jonathan Joseph ( talk) 19:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

The "black link" in the article is inside the word " Nielsen." As far as I know, Nielsen are not related to TVRG. Do you believe they are? Why the Observer chose to link to TVRG instead of Nielsen proper, we do not know. But that's no proof of notability. - The Gnome ( talk) 23:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Article informs readers about site and does not come across in a biased manner. —�- 21:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.147.235.111 ( talk)

• Comment. "There are 2 spa keep votes." That was my count also. Narky Blert ( talk) 23:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete The sources ostensibly proving notability number about fifty, an impressive number. At closer inspection, however, almost all of them are not worth the bandwidth they take up.

1. Alexa Internet will mention or list anything that's online, even if it rates close to zero. The multiple sourcing to Alexa shows weakness rather than strength in terms of notability, unless we believe that every one of the thirty million websites monitored by Alexa is, by that fact, notable.
2. Then, there's a whole bunch of self-referential links, from Twitter posts down to the official website of TVRG. These are all officially unreliable, primary sources.
3. Next up are the blogs. Another source that's treated by Wikipedia like an unreliable witness.
4. Bringing up the stinky rear are sources that mention the subject zero times, such as this one. (Yes, it's TV By The Numbers. Someone above based their vote on account of TVRG mentioned by that source, but a quick check reveals nothing.) Or, you see a link taking you to the Observer and you think, of course, "That's a Jared Kushner company. It's gotta be trustworthy." Alas, this link too contains zero mentions of the subject.

It's a non-notable outfit. No two ways about it. - The Gnome ( talk) 23:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I have no issues with self-published sources providing they're outweighed by reliable and independent sources .... In this case the majority of sources in the article are self published and the Twitter ones are more or less mentions of the website and that's about it,

Now for independent sources we get 2 results on Google News [3] ( This and This), Now the first source is basically that news website crediting an image taken from TVRG, The second source is someone commenting on the article and signing off as "The TV Ratings Guide" ..... so to put it in simple terms there are no independent sources for this website at all .....,

Books are useless as only one book mentions the website [4] however the book is a word for word copy of Craig Ferguson, Another mentions a completely different ratings guide and then the other 5 or so books are unrelated,

If you take away the self-published crap and the one-bit Twitter mentions there is literally nothing... not even a scratch of notability here..... The keeps are laughable at best and should be ignored in their entirety,

If anyone can find any sort of evidence of notability that goes beyond TVRGs website and the half-arsed Twitter mentions then I'm all ears. – Davey2010 ^Talk 23:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment - May I suggest an option C? Move the article to a draft space so people can attach "reliable" sources if they exist. Esuka323 ( talk) 19:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Greetings, Esuka323. The AfD has been up since April Fool's Day. Wouldn't you think that such sources would have been found and posted up by the article's many ardent supporter? - The Gnome ( talk) 14:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

+1 - If sources existed they would've been posted by now, If sources don't exist then it's utterly pointless to move as it would only be stored and abandoned (thus failing WP:NOTWEBHOST), If anyone has found any reliable sources now would be a good idea to present those. – Davey2010 ^Talk 15:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Exactly. WP:AFD should encourage editors to try to save any article worth keeping. If they can't, it's not worth keeping. Narky Blert ( talk) 23:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

FWIW Narky Blert I originally came to this AFD with the plan of !voting Keep and providing a plethora of sources, Unfortunately it wasn't meant to be, Ah well. – Davey2010 ^Talk 00:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Per notability issues with the sources raised by other editors. Esuka323 ( talk) 19:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete per The Gnome. Nothing showing any real independant coverage that is significant Galobtter ( pingó mió) 17:48, 15 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. –  Joe ( talk) 21:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Sambhaji Kadam

Sambhaji Kadam (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 21:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nomination. Using a "slam dunk" joke in a basketball related AfD is a temptation. Resist it. - The Gnome ( talk) 23:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 11:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 11:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 11:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. –  Joe ( talk) 21:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Dishant Vipul Shah

Dishant Vipul Shah (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Non-notable basketball player. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 21:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete for failing WP:NBASKETBALL per nomination. "One of his career's highs came when he attended NBA's camp in China in 2009." Says it all. - The Gnome ( talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 11:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 11:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 11:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable basketball player. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. –  Joe ( talk) 21:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Trideep Rai

Trideep Rai (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 21:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nomination. I see the basketball season is upon us. - The Gnome ( talk) 23:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 11:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 11:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 11:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete does not even meet our ridiculously low notability guidelines for sports figures. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. –  Joe ( talk) 21:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Trilobites (article series)

Trilobites (article series) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No references independent of The New York Times, and no clear redirect target where a mention of this series would be reasonable. (it would be undue in the main article on the paper) power~enwiki ( π, ν) 21:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. A non-notable blog/column. Doesn't appear to have won any awards or recognition (compare to Dot Earth), and written by a number of authors, precluding redirecting to a single person. No logical redirect target: if this column must be mentioned on Wikipedia, it should simply be briefly defined rather than linked, e.g. "...featured in the New York Times column 'Trilobites'..." --Animalparty! ( talk) 22:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! ( talk) 22:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! ( talk) 22:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nomination, since practically nothing outside the subject's host newspaper can be found that mentions it. - The Gnome ( talk) 23:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. –  Joe ( talk) 21:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Andy Funnell

Andy Funnell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The coverage appears to be entirely about his tragic death. Quotes such as "one of the best examples of windsurfing talent" in the immediate aftermath of his death can't be interpreted as claims of notability. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - WP:NOTMEMORIAL Acnetj ( talk) 21:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete for lacking independent notability. Removing the words "death", "dead", "mourn", and "funeral" from an online search brings up practically nothing. - The Gnome ( talk) 23:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 11:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. –  Joe ( talk) 21:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

List of Everything Wrong With... episodes

List of Everything Wrong With... episodes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Pure unencyclopaedic listcruft with virtually no verified information. BangJan1999 20:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete Dense and un-navigable article with an awful sourcing ratio and a complete 'you have to know the series to understand the list at minimum' type of writing. Nate • ( chatter) 21:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• delete ahh, so someone else was eyeing this after List of Nostalgia critic episodes went up for deletion. Ya beat me to it.... 💵Money💵emoji💵 ^Talk 21:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment I was thinking the exact same thing. Nate • ( chatter) 23:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - WP:FANCRUFT that belongs to Wikia FANDOM! Acnetj ( talk) 22:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete for lack of notability per nomination. - The Gnome ( talk) 23:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete as fancruft. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not notable as a whole, and episodes not notable individually. wumbolo ^^^ 11:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete. It's not necessarily required and it is trivia (notably the audio sentences, which some anonymous users add it). Before I came to the page, I also saw the MusicSins video but it was already deleted. ( Sculture65 ( talk) 16:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 16:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Mumtaz Qadri

Mumtaz Qadri (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Assasinated Salmaan Taseer. Otherwise, non-notable. Should disappear per WP:PERPETRATOR. PepperBeast (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Salmaan Taseer; and with far less detail, obviously. - The Gnome ( talk) 00:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 09:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 09:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 09:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep and note that despite the general rule we do have both Category:Assassins of heads of state and Category:Assassins of heads of government. In this case the political complexity of the celebration of Qadri and his act of political murder argues for keep. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep it meets WP:PERPETRATOR.  samee   converse  20:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment quoting WP:PERP A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person [emphasis mine]. This shouldn't be a separate article, and if there's anything useful that isn't covered in Salmaan Taseer, it should be merged into that article. PepperBeast (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• You can not vote twice in your own AfD. The AfD in itself is your !vote. BabbaQ ( talk) 07:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep indeed it meets WP:PERPETRATOR. Act of political murder. BabbaQ ( talk) 07:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Please explain how this meets WP:PERP PepperBeast (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep with regret but some obvious reasons. Per WP:BIO1E, If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.. Generally, I'm not in favor of keeping bios about low level terrorists but the unfortunate assassination of Salman Taseer attracted wide media attention and is of significant historical importance. This terrorist is subject of massive media attention, and therefore clearly meets the notability criteria, unfortunately. The actions of this terrorist have turned the spotlight onto the issue of blasphemy law in Pakistan and lead to significant debate on the issue. -- Saqib ( talk) 09:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Shame on you for using word terrorist. There is no RS saying him terrorist. His was only one victim. He was convicted and hanged till death, now forgive him. Care to know Osama Bin Laden is not directly named terrorist in Wikipedia. Salute to your loudmouth. -- 103.218.102.30 ( talk) 08:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm aware term such as "terrorist" should be avoided in article NS but this is not main NS. For what it's worth. Qadri was charged with murder and terrorism and so he was a convicted terrorist. By the way, you should stop using proxies by now.-- Saqib ( talk) 09:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply

@ 103.218.102.30 I'm not aware of a threshold for the number of victims which an assassin has to pass in order to be labeled a "terrorist." What is it? As far as I can remember my History, the anarchist assassins of the 19th century ( and some of the 20th) were describing themselves as "terrorizing the ruling classes." By the way, in the article " Osama bin Laden," the word "terrorist" is found thirty-four times. (A bit harsh, you think?) - The Gnome ( talk) 11:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• According to Wikipedia guidelines, its a keep.  M A A Z   T A L K  20:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep - we've tended to do this for assassins, horrible as it is. Bearian ( talk) 02:31, 15 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. Consensus is that the sources in the article plus those also provided in the discussion satisfy GNG showing a degree of continuing comment on this match Fenix down ( talk) 07:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Small Maracanazo

Small Maracanazo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Tough because it is foreign language, but after a look around, I don't see sufficient sources that indicate this single match passes WP:GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I disagree with the deletion proposal- The article is translated from sections of the Spanish Wikipedia (es:Pequeño Maracanazo) and the Portuguese Wikipedia (pt:Pequeño Maracanazo). I have included also references taken from publications done in Venezuela about the Venezuelan football: that means to me that it is noteworthy (it is considered one of the highest achievements of the Venezuelan soccer: please read "sp:Fútbol de colonias en Venezuela"). There it is also a university work/publication on it! Sincerely, I don't understand why it has to be erased ONLY in the English Wikipedia........-- 92no0 ( talk) 14:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 10:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 10:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete Not enough current coverage, all of the sources in the article are blogs, references 2 and 4 are actually repeated and reference 5 is a picture where the players aren't identified. As a native Spanish speaker and Venezuelan, at first glance I fail to see how the article is notable in the context of the 1971 Copa Libertadores competition.-- Jamez42 ( talk) 01:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply

All blogs? there it is one reference from a 'El Universal' newspaper (the main in Caracas) and another from an important Caracas university Phd thesis ( [5])...I can add excerpts from the related articles of the Italian newspaper of Caracas: la Voce d'italia.

I am adding to the article these phrases: The victory was received by the Italians of Venezuela with street car caravans in Caracas and it was celebrated by the "La Voce d'Italia" (the main newspaper of the local Italian community) with a special edition ^[1] The brasilian newspaper “Jornal Dos Sport” (of Rio de Janeiro) published the next day an article complaining about this disaster of the powerful Fluminense, champion of Brasil, while pinpointing that the Fluminense vice-president died of a heart attack during the match. After 45 years the Venezuelan newspaper "Ultimas Noticias" still celebrated the victory in 2016 ^[2]-- 92no0 ( talk) 18:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply

While this is true, I should note that the PhD thesis is not about the match, but rather of Deportivo Petare (Petare F.C.), which formerly was the Deportivo Italia. There are only five mentions of the Maracaná stadium in the thesis, so I see more appropriate to merge the content with the team's main article per WP:GNG.-- Jamez42 ( talk) 19:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Well, the Phd thesis names five times the Maracanã but this is not enough for you and of course the Venezuelan newspapers (from el Universal to el Nacional & Ultimas Noticias & La Voce d'Italia) don't count anything.....like the brasilian Journal do Sport reference .....sincerely, all this is really strange. -- 92no0 ( talk) 01:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply

IMHO there are evidences of notability, from articles in international newspapers to commemorations. As a further proof of notability I have added the report published "internationally" by the AP (Associated Press) about the match. The report was sent in Spanish (and published, of course often partially, in many newspapers) in all the Latinoamerican countries and Spain.-- 92no0 ( talk) 01:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep - There are articles about this in the Spanish and Portuguese wikipedias and big sporting sites such as Globo Esporte and Spanish language sources mention it as well. PMLF ( talk) 22:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep [6] [7] [8] amongst others still detail what a monumental upset this was. SportingFlyer talk 07:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep since the article is about not just a notable but a famous subject. Sources from other languages that establish notability are, of course, cceptable in English-language Wikipedia, as long as they are reliable. - The Gnome ( talk) 00:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep I'll take back my vote to delete the article because since the article was nominated there's been quite some improvement in it. I still think the article needs work to be done, just not enough to be deleted anymore.-- Jamez42 ( talk) 05:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep Same reasons I wrote last week. -- 92no0 ( talk) 13:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Sorry, multiple voting is not acceptable. - The Gnome ( talk) 14:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Sorry. I thought that with the "relist" we have to vote again.-- 92no0 ( talk) 22:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep - just because the majority of coverage of this subject are from non-English sources does not mean the subject us not notable. That being said this article does need some major work and clean up if it is kept. Inter&anthro ( talk) 14:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. –  Joe ( talk) 21:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Factom

Factom (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a notable blockchain company. The references are about funding rounds (or are of questionable veracity; the NASDAQ ref is simply a re-published personal blog) and don't appear to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources Retimuko ( talk) 20:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 04:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Cassidy the Patriot

Cassidy the Patriot (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional in nature; fails WP:NMUSICIAN with lack of reliable third-party sources. No notable, charting music. hiàn 19:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. hiàn 22:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Vanity page created by an SPA editor. A search turns up the usual user-download sites, but zero coverage from third party, independent media. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 09:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for emergin musicians to advance their career. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete no independent reliable sources Galobtter ( pingó mió) 16:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Rewind (England novel)

Rewind (England novel) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a notable book. The author doesn't have a Wikipedia page, and there is not sufficient referencing for GNG. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 11:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 11:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete, one unreliable ref in the article, google returning nothing (almost less than nothing), the author doesn't have a page. Szzuk ( talk) 17:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Szzuk. (Noticed this expiring poorly attended AFD, so I added an extra pair of eyes but my poking around uncovered nothing additional to what others have said.) Martinp ( talk) 14:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Szzuk. Can't find anything to base this article on. / Julle ( talk) 16:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Borani Village

Borani Village (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable village in India, don't see the reason to have it even as a stub. Bbarmadillo ( talk) 19:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Speedy keep — Per the very first criterion of WP:GEOLAND, which states that:

Populated, legally recognized places] are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. One exception is that census tracts are usually not considered notable.

There is also strong precedent regarding this. So, notability — in this case — is inherent.
Regards, SshibumXZ ( Talk) ( Contributions). 19:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC); edited 14:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC). reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 19:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. There is no such thing a non-notable village in Wikipedia. Recognized populated places are notable regardless of size. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment – As already pointed out by others, it clearly meets WP:GEOLAND – [9]. - NitinMlk ( talk) 21:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per the others and per WP:5PILLARS. -- Oakshade ( talk) 17:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per the ones above. It's notable as a populated place. SportingFlyer talk 04:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades ^Godric 03:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Particles of Truth

Particles of Truth (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable film. No claims of notability, and the references are to the films own (defunct) website or directory sites like IMDb. The awards don't appear to be significant and have no independent sourcing. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 19:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 19:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep Rotten Tomatoes shows it has been fully reviewed in multiple reliable sources here including Variety, Hollywood Reporter, New York Post, Village Voice, Slant Magazine and the article quotes a Los Angeles Times review (that link is down and will try to fix it later.) Overall it passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 ( talk) 15:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- In addition to the reviews mentioned by Atlantic306 this film is discussed in at least one film guidebook: Beyond Bergman: The New Age of Independent and Foreign Films, 1990-2009. Clear keep. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 16:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Federal Moguls

Federal Moguls (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No standalone notability. Lots of unreferenced claims and trivia Geschichte ( talk) 18:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 19:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 19:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete, there have never been any refs in the article and little content added since article creation ten years ago, nothing on google i can see. Szzuk ( talk) 17:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete essentially per Szzuk. I looked as well and found nothing that could be used as sources. Martinp ( talk) 14:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 04:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

List of Samsung devices

List of Samsung devices (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY specifically "7. Simple listings without context information." "Examples include, but are not limited to: [...] products and services". Also list includes many items which do not and could not have articles, and is not exhaustive of Samsung "devices" (not that that would be desirable but the list is arbitrary). —DIYeditor ( talk) 18:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Nat965 ( talk) 19:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Most of the smartphone entries are listed under Samsung Galaxy anyhow. Everything else (including specific model numbers of other devices) is non notable. Ajf773 ( talk) 20:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:SPAM. Bearian ( talk) 02:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete an obvious WP:SPAM, created solely to advertise certain sites. Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom ( talk) 15:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Scolaire ( talk) 10:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Institut Nova Història

Institut Nova Història (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Attack page, which begins, The Institut Nova Història...is a cultural foundation of Barcelona...dedicated to the pseudohistory and historical revisionism, with clear political intentions. According to the talk page, it has been translated from Spanish and Catalan Wikipedias. It appears to consist entirely of original research, citing a multitude of primary sources, then presenting the authors' own (extremely negative) gloss. Scolaire ( talk) 18:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Scolaire ( talk) 18:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Scolaire ( talk) 18:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Scolaire ( talk) 18:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Scolaire ( talk) 18:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep and continue work on the article. They are democratically elected so we have to engage them accordingly, otherwise it results in more ignorance and suffering. Wakari07 ( talk) 21:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

( I translated the article. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Institut_Nova_Història Here is a discussion that explains that the subject is treated, and how it is involved in the social and political aspect of Catalonia.

I am going to tell you an experience, I knew and I am involved by twitter in Spanish politics since 2 months ago, since I am Venezuelan, I live in Venezuela and i cared about Venezuela, however I almost do not twit, I only retwits things, I do not even look for twits of independent Catalans, but of Unionist Catalans since the start, and despite that on February 2, 2018 attacked me a typical Catalan independentist trying to convince a Venezuelan guy like me of these theories that he believes faithfully, with a lot of messages, and giving me that information and other pages that are not from the institute but others (He gave me two pages giving validity and propagating these things: ' Fundació d'Estudis Històrics de Catalunya' and ' Cercle Català d'Història'). Here are the tweets Obviously I did not convince myself but it made me understand how many Catalans think and about what was the famous Institute Nova History and the Cucurull of which many people speak. In Catalonia, it is quite common that they talk about the subject they have mentioned since i know of Catalan politics-- ILoveCaracas ( talk) 21:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

"I ask you to take pictures of these tweets" as they erase things at once when something fails-- ILoveCaracas ( talk) 22:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I know that this opinion does not go with wikipedia and sorry for that but only for them to see that you have to take evidence of these things, but I personally know that they are experts in manipulating public opinion, they always go from supporters of malcom x, anti-fascists, etc. in favor of everything that loves most of the world, then they send really explosive messages, leaders and university professors, for example, comparing Spaniards descendents of Catalonia with the Maghrebies of France, for example, which they both are " followers of violence and hatred in the host country", or of people doing bad things in the street, then that is bad sight and immediately they try to leave no trace of it. I only say that it does that things like this one do not know and other things that they like them yes. I know that I have already gone politically with this last message but my intention is not this )-- ILoveCaracas ( talk) 22:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Ah... translated from another language version of WP... those always are difficult. Before we can determine whether to keep or delete, we need someone who can assess the sources... to determine which are reliable, independent, and secondary. Note that the Spanish and Catalan versions of WP may not have the same rules as the English version. It may be that we can keep this after a major rewrite... it may be that we cannot. Blueboar ( talk) 22:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I think the sources are reliable but you have to keep in mind what I said, and I tried to put direct links of TV3 and Radio Catalunya media and appear me on the Catalan-speaking Catalan independentists's comments putting links that would take to recent interviews of members that made conferences in those main tvs and radios of Catalonia recently, I click and take me to the offcial tv3 page but the file was deleted. Also in other websites, this time of Spanish newspapers today they include a photo of the leaders of this institution talking on TV3. I do not know if that is because as they have all the rights reserved for the interviews they managed to erase them at this time of the internationalization of the process. I am commenting this time only on the sources related to the interviews in the mass media of Catalan television Although I find on youtube enough interviews of these members in the same medias talking this one something recent but mostly that are seen right now are of 20 years ago; I also found enough videos on YouTube when these members talk about all this at the Catalan National Assembly as they are current secretariats of the Catalan National Assembly, and all important members of Catalan independence, some creating anthem for this, organizing all kinds of things, appearing alongside main leaders-- ILoveCaracas ( talk) 23:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep even if the article has a non-neutral point of view on the topic, the topic is suitable to keep. It is not so negative as an attack, but is a negative point of view expressed in our author's voice. Some rewriting may serve to balance it. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 00:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep – The institute's ideas seem indeed loony, but that's no reason to delete a well-sourced article about a notable subject. If there's a problem with the article's POV of the institute, it can be dealt with there. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 01:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep and improve where needed .... WP:Does deletion help?.-- Moxy ( talk) 03:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I objected here to the links to this article that had been added in the "See also" section in other articles such as the one on Shakespeare, El Cid, etc. but not to the article itself. References should be checked, maybe some could be found in English, but the institution does exist and it does promote these theories. As long as the info is verifiable, the article should remain. Maragm ( talk) 05:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Found two refs in English from reputable sources in case anyone wants to add them to the article for referencing. This one and this other one. In this last one, p. 6 of the PDF, it mentions not just Columbus but other historical figures who the Institut also claim are Catalan. Maragm ( talk) 06:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. From even a cursory check this institute is notable - multiple google news and book hits. I do share nom's concerns regarding POV - however they are best addressed by editing the article - if need be by stubbing it down to a short neutral stub. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. User has moved it to draft and tagged. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Karan Saini

Karan Saini (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG .There is some trivial coverage regarding a particular incident but little or no coverage of the individual exists outside of the context. Razer( talk) 17:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

In response to Razer( User Talk:Razer2115):

Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalitmail ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I have applied {{ db-user}} to the page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalitmail ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 19:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 19:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 19:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete The author has move the article to draft space, and subsequently applied {{ db-user}} (although the transcribed the template manually, so it might not show properly in the template's categories). WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 15:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

ICC Annual Ranking Update

ICC Annual Ranking Update (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:NOSTATS. The tables are updated to show the current ranking in the relevant articles, but there's no need to keep an historical ranking record on WP. Previous attemps to either speedy delete or redirect have been reverted. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete No sources to back up why these particular sets of rankings are notable, and no proper sourcing is given for the individual ratings tables. Only way to do this is either from page history (which for previous years is often quite sparse) or using Wayback Machine. I have been trying to keep the tables upto date for the last year or 2 but don't see the need for this page. Recent International cricket in yyyy articles have the start of season rankings and I think this is enough Spike 'em ( talk) 21:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 11:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete The countries that ended the year first might be notable, but having a points data of all countries going back to when the ranking system was introduced isn't needed. MT Train ^Talk 11:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 04:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Maki Hojo

Maki Hojo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 19:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 11:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 11:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete' as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG /– Davey2010 ^Talk 15:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 15:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk ( talk) 17:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

List of NFC champions

List of NFC champions (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Redundant, as this is covered in the NFC Championship article. Piranha 249 16:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 19:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 19:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep or merge The pages as they stand now consist of two separate sources of information. SportingFlyer talk
• Keep - Most of the information here is not included in the NFC Championship article, and does not belong there since that article is about the game, not the team. Rlendog ( talk) 00:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Perfectly valid list article. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 11:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 11:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 11:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep notability is certainly achieved, the only reason to delete would be any possible redundancy or another "operational" deletion, which is fine for discussion of course. I believe both articles are worthwhile to be kept because the list itself has meaning and the length of the list is becoming large, which can make a single article clumsy or unwieldy. There's likely some crossover (both necessary and unnecessary) so care needs to be taken in the editing of the content of both articles--but that is an editing issue and not a deletion issue.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 14:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Passes notability required for standalone lists. The article for the game has details about the game, its score and location. This list focuses on the details of the team itself and its players. WikiVirus C ^(talk) 15:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk ( talk) 17:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

List of AFC champions

List of AFC champions (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Redundant, as this is covered in the AFC Championship article. Piranha 249 16:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 19:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 19:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep or merge The pages as they stand now consist of two separate sources of information. SportingFlyer talk 21:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Most of the information here is not covered in the AFC Championship article, and does not belong there since that article is about the game, not the team. Rlendog ( talk) 00:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Perfectly valid list article. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 11:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Passes notability required for standalone lists. The article for the game has details about the game, its score and location. This list focuses on the details of the team itself and its players. WikiVirus C ^(talk) 15:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk ( talk) 17:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Lanre da Silva

Lanre da Silva (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix ( talk) 15:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

This entry is part of the Women in Red project and is still under development (see talk page: /info/en/?search=Talk:Lanre_da_Silva) Abonzz ( talk) 16:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 17:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 17:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 17:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Considerable press coverage in Nigeria. African women in business cannot be expected to enjoy the same international coverage as those from Britain or America.-- Ipigott ( talk) 05:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Where is the in-depth, non-trivial support? There are a large number of women from Africa that are able to meet the requirements. All it takes is a couple of articles that meet the criteria of in-depth, non-trivial support. Your comment that the subject does not only serves to dilute the argument for inclusion. reddogsix ( talk) 17:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Lanre Da Silva is very notable. HandsomeBoy ( talk) 13:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC). reply

• Comment - Please provide example of how she meets WP:N. reddogsix ( talk) 17:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. HandsomeBoy ( talk) 18:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep: She is mentioned in several books on African fashion. The info has been added to the article. Abonzz ( talk) 16:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Being mentioned in a book is far from in-depth, non-trivial support. The book mentions do not support inclusion into Wikipedia. reddogsix ( talk) 17:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• She is mentioned in the book "Fashion Africa" as being a fashion favourite and receiving numerous accolades. The authour of the book is an industry expert : https://books.google.ca/books?id=-ZtnAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA155&dq=lanre+da+silva,+fashion+africa&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjaqemY6K_aAhWGmeAKHRfYC4gQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=lanre%20da%20silva%2C%20fashion%20africa&f=false
• Italian Vogue has also done several articles on her and other articles cite her as being a leading designer in Nigeria. I added the new info to her wikipedia page so you can check it out. Abonzz ( talk) 13:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep A bucketload of sources turn up on a news search. She's also mentioned in this UNESCO report, though I can't get a Google Books preview so I don't know how much coverage is there. I can't see any evidence that the in-depth Punch article isn't a reasonable source to use. Remember that Nigerian people will generally have less online coverage than what we see on Western topics. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Strikes me as having received enough press coverage to meet the notability guideline. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao ^{Che dicono a Signa?} _{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Sufficient indications of notability to meet GNG. Selected to participate in the UN's Fashion for Development 2012, [10] Naomi Campbell opened 2018 Arise Fashion Week wearing her design, [11] features in Elle [12] and Vogue [13] clearly indicate notability. SusunW ( talk) 17:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Meets notability criteria per all of the above. -- The Anome ( talk) 17:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Elle and Vogue, in consideration of fashion, are for sure important news, the opposite of trivial. Elisa.rolle ( talk) 17:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep multiple sources , Notability found Samat lib ( talk) 01:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep per SusunW. Multiple sources. Meets notability criteria. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 08:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Sound of Silver. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades ^Godric 03:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Someone Great

Someone Great (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:NSONG in my opinion, in that though it's a great song, I am concerned that the song has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial works. StewdioMACK ( talk) 15:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 17:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment: wonderful song, but it looks like the nominator could be right here, it fails WP:NSONG. Doesn't appear to have charted anywhere in the world – it's likely it got reviewed in NME in the UK and maybe in Billboard or Spin in the US when it came out, but that's not going to be enough to confer notability. Most commentary on the song is probably going to be in passing as part of the reviews of its parent album. A redirect to Sound of Silver might be in order unless someone can come up with some good sources. Richard3120 ( talk) 21:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Sound of Silver. This article does not get too far beyond the song's existence, but per WP:EXIST that is not enough. Tidbits about the video's production can be mentioned at the album article. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 15:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 04:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Jordan Baker (basketball)

Jordan Baker (basketball) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. Coverage of his suspension and DUI are WP:ROUTINE coverage. Does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL. Note that in the previous nomination which ended in "no consensus", many claimed his playing in Mexico met NBASKETBALL per its prior "similar major professional sports league" loophole. However, that wording has been removed since 2016. — Bagumba ( talk) 15:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — Bagumba ( talk) 15:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete (again) - doesn’t meet WP:GNG. Rikster2 ( talk) 15:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete - The update to WP:NBASKETBALL does not give a pass to this article anymore. No indication these routine reports meet GNG. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 20:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete: As creator of the article I have to agree, now that I see that Baker does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL due to the limited scope of news coverage in both his shortened collegiate and pro careers. Arbor to SJ ( talk) 22:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nomination; also per creator. - The Gnome ( talk) 09:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete Per GNg and NBasketball. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 04:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Jackson Quezada

Jackson Quezada (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable former minor league baseball player who is currently a coach in the Arizona rookie league. Notability requirements for baseball players have tightened since this was last nominated for deletion. Spanneraol ( talk) 14:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol ( talk) 14:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete Last AfD (from 2009) was a "no consensus" with WP:GHITS being the basis of the keep rationale. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. At least in 2009 one could argue redirect because WP:TOOSOON. Now we know he's not going to play in the majors. Can be recreated if he ever ends up coaching in the majors. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable minor league player. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 04:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Nicknames of Washington, D.C.

Nicknames of Washington, D.C. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails basic notability requirements. I can see no reason not to include this information in the Washington, D.C. article.

• Delete, the Washington, D.C. article has a section on nicknames and there is no reason for a separate article MarkZusab ( talk) 16:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete and comment: In the DC article it seems barely more than clutter and trivia, and has been removed (pending Talk page discussion). If this article is headed for the dustbin it should be because it's OR, Synthesis, trivia and almost certainly incomplete; and not because it can be shoehorned into the main article.

It's also almost completely redundant of the info contained at List of city nicknames in the United States. JohnInDC ( talk) 16:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. It's nearly duplicated in List of city nicknames in the United States, plus Washington doesn't really have a well-known nickname. DMV? Is that supposed to be the next Big (Rotten) Apple? Hey, now there's a thought ... Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete for being the seat of redundancy. - The Gnome ( talk) 08:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Note that editors added source and context after nominating. ( non-admin closure) Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 20:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

2018–19 Chelsea F.C. season

2018–19 Chelsea F.C. season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

1. No source
2. No context
3. 2017–18 season is not over yet Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 14:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 14:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 14:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 14:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh ( talk) 14:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep The 2016-17 season article was created in April 13, 2017-18 was a bit later on May 8, so why delete this just to re-create in next week or even next month? By the time this discussion is over, there will already be many sources discussing next season. If we discuss for a couple of weeks and decide to delete, it's likely someone will put it back up within a day. I can find plenty of sources about Chelsea's 2018 summer and pre-season already. We can be sure that the 2018-19 Chelsea season is going to happen and will be notable per WP:NSEASONS. In the unlikely outcome that it doesn't happen or isn't notable, there will still be an article about why it didn't happen or wasn't notable. Just go with it. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 14:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep on the basis that we know it would have been created very, very soon anyway and it's probably at the earliest date of creation where you can probably just about get away with it. Bungle ^{( talk • contribs)} 15:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep, on the basis that they have already clinched a place in the 2018–19 Premier League and have started making arrangements for pre-season (the friendly in Australia). Jmorrison230582 ( talk) 15:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep I am in agreement, although this is early whats the point in deleting something to recreate it again a few weeks later. Govvy ( talk) 15:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep The version when it was nominated was not sufficient as an article. However, after the expected event (friendly match) was added with citation, it seem sufficient as an article, despite more major content would only appeared after May. Matthew_hk t c 17:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep seems pointless bureaucracy to delete this when pre-season matches are only three months away, at which point the article would get re-created -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 18:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. –  Joe ( talk) 12:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Wits Solar Car

Wits Solar Car (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

University student project. Fails WP:Notability Park3r ( talk) 13:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 14:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete for jumping the gun. - The Gnome ( talk) 11:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to 30 km/h zone. Content can be merged from history if it is sourceable. Sandstein 16:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

20's Plenty for Us

20's Plenty for Us (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable article, no references. A bit of googling around shows mostly fliers, powerpoints, and mentions. Nothing that really shows notability. The prose of the article is unencyclopedic, as well as possibly promotional. _{Vermont | reply here} 13:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 14:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Talk 14:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete Partly promotional, partly attack page, almost no good sources. Also, there's not much chance of good sources, as press coverage tends to be of campaigning, normally joint with other road safety groups, rather than of the organization itself. (My CoI declaration; I'm a member of 20's Plenty and a local rep.) Richard Keatinge ( talk) 14:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 14:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete. Non notable organisation, unsourced and completely fails WP:NPOV. Ajf773 ( talk) 18:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete It's an unsourceable bunch of rabid Daily Mail readers. Get rid. (I am disappointed I cannot set off a 20mph speed camera on my pushbike). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

On reflection, would it perhaps be better as a redirect to 30 km/h zone? With mild boldness, I've replaced the content with the redirect code, while leaving the AfD notice. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 13:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Yep that seems like a shout: Merge with 30 km/h zone!-- Newbiepedian ( talk · contribs · X! · logs) 05:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I agree the article is badly written, but I'm finding lots of coverage of the campaigns. In rough order of quality of sources:
  • The New Yorker
  • No Accident: Eliminating Injury and Death on Canadian Roads
  • Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step at a Time
  • Committee for Regional Development
  • Lexington Patch
  • The Argus
  • The Press
  • Bromley Times

  The ones lower down on the list are mostly coverage in local media, but higher up are articles in publications on this side of the pond, which shows more than local interest. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  As an alternative, a merge to 30 km/h zone would be reasonable as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 16 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.

Melanie Melanson

The result was keep. I'll revisit this is six months, hopefully with good-faith editors who read the full rationale. ( non-admin closure) TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 07:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Melanie Melanson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Chalk this one up to "missing white girl syndrome". The majority of sources are databases for missing persons (and YouTube videos), but Wikipedia is not a database for missing persons. We also have the routine "X years later..." stories with no actual in-depth analysis or impact. I feel for the family, but tragedy does not equate to instant notability. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 12:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 13:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 13:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen ( talk) 13:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• This isn't so much "missing white girl syndrome" as the fact that the editor who created this is known for making these types of articles all the time. ★Trekker ( talk) 18:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Nom might want to strike her race-based assertion on the grounds that this editor appears to create articles on a race-neutral basis ( Disappearance of Cleashindra Hall). E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• I don't recall attributing "missing white girl syndrome" to the article's creator, so no. Rather, I do recall attributing it to the "X years later..." coverage that is actually described in my rationale. Perhaps you want to re-read it E.M.Gregory and tell me where the article's creator is mentioned so I may strike it? TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 19:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• And given that we try to keep our AfD discussions race-neutral ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Cleashindra Hall). E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

E.M.Gregory "missing white girl syndrome" is an observed social phenomenon. I cannot "unobserve" it unfortunately. I don't complain when you call suspects in criminal cases jihadists or terrorists "race-neutral" AFDs before an official investigation does. Why is observing a social phenomenon on disproportionate (but routine) news coverage somehow different? And can you elaborate as to why you are linking to an AFD I never participated in? TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 20:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Although sourcing in article is poor, there has in fact been INDEPTH, ONGOING coverage of the search for for the body and for clues about the perp in major regional dailies (I have excluded duplicate/echoed stories). Menlanson went missing in 1974. Boston Herald: Divers search pond for body of missing Woburn teen-ager, (7 Aug. 1992;) Decades-long search rekindled with $5G (7 May 2009); DA mum on search for girl (25 Sept. 2009); Lowell Sun, Private search resumes for Melanie Melanson (18 Aug. 2012). Boston Globe, 20 years later, search for girl continues: Police reportedly scour Woburn site, (25 Sept.2009,) Search resumes in 1989 case of missing teen: Woburn student was last seen at party in woods (29 July 2012); She deserves proper burial, (6 May 2009). And more similar. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep, as E.M.Gregory pointed out that this article contains ongoing coverage. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 20:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep - lack of valid deletion rationale. "missing white girl syndrome" is not a valid deletion rationale (nor is NOTNEWS for a clear non-news issue). What is relevant for assessing notability of the event is coverage. In this case it is easy to see we have continuing in-depth coverage of this possible murder - e.g. in 2015, 2013, 2012, [ 2014, 2011, 2009. Coverage is INDEPTH and CONTINUING. As for the editorial considerations of NEWSORGS - take it up with the editors there - not with Wikipedia's editors. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Speedy keep indeed. I'll gladly revisit this issue with editors who read the full rationale. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 07:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. It's an unattributed copy paste of multiple sources, internal and external, so deleted speedily — Spaceman Spiff 12:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Shiv Yog Physiotherapy And Yoga Class

Shiv Yog Physiotherapy And Yoga Class (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Not sure what to class this as, its title implies promotion of a class but the text reads like it duplicates existing articles. All seems a bit Forky. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. There is a rough consensus that Murtaja was a notable person and/or that his death is a notable event. Several people suggested that the article could be moved to Death of Yaser Murtaja or similar, but there was no consensus on that. As neatly summarised by K.e.coffman, "whether the article is a biography or the Killing of Yaser Murtaja is immaterial to the notability of the subject". –  Joe ( talk) 21:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Yaser Murtaja

Yaser Murtaja (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL - of this WP:BLP1E/ WP:BIO1E individual. little coverage of the individual exists outside of the context of being killed in the 2018 Gaza border protests, where this is already covered Icewhiz ( talk) 12:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep - As you would say, not so fast. An investigation is ongoing surrounding the circumstances of this journalist's death. Because the Israeli military is "investigating", I doubt anyone will be charged, but the impact will exist in how it demonstrates Israel's disproportionate use of force and inability to protect the press. If I am wrong later on, redirect it. But if he was anyone other than a Palestinian, this wouldn't even be a discussion. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 12:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  To the contrary - we delete casualties of events in a routine fashion, when we have an article on the event itself - which in this case we have. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  Do you want me to gather a few dozen diffs of you voting "per RAPID" for similar incidents with similar coverage? Keep the same quality of coverage, but change "Palestinian journalist" to "Israeli civilian" and the attitude changes. The fact is this incident is being reported independently, and a simple title change "Killing of Yaser Murtaja" addresses your BLP1E concern. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 13:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  The Killing of Yaser Murtaja is not distinct from 2018 Gaza border protests in which he was killed. I am actually quite consistent in my AfD !votes (which are not ethnicity dependent) - had this been a standalone incident and not part of the coverage of the clashes - I would've supported a rename. When I !vote RAPID - it is when the event itself is distinct (with plausible inclusion in some multi-year list - here the 2018 Gaza border protests spans a couple of weeks - and per NOTMEMORIAL we do not create articles for individual casualties). Icewhiz ( talk) 13:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  Not going to argue this much further since it is rather obvious where this nomination is heading. And I won't even bother arguing for you to apply the same standards to all subjects. I have known you (and a few others) for too long to ask that of you. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 13:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep as per noted saints and martyrs. Wakari07 ( talk) 12:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC) The SCMP qualifies him as "well-known". Wakari07 ( talk) 13:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  He had a short blurb in an AJ piece in 2017 - "The civil defence workers hesitated … the paramedics were strongly against it because their colleague was killed that morning", says cameraman Yaser Murtaja. "They were worried they'd be bombed if they entered the area." [14] - which does not move him beyond 1E territory. All of the substantive coverage relates to his death in 2018 Gaza border protests. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Your personal opinion does not change the headline of the South China Morning Post, meaning he was well-known before his death. Well-known Palestinian journalist Yasser Murtaja dies as Israel border clash escalates Wakari07 ( talk) 13:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Then please present the sources dating before his death that discuss him-- Shrike ( talk) 13:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Of course not. It's up to you to prove those articles don't exist. Wakari07 ( talk) 14:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC) But here is a second one, from CBS, saying in the article body he was "well-known" (again implying, before his death). Wakari07 ( talk) 14:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep -- Alaa :)..! 13:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The man's biography showed that he was well known in several parts of the Arab world and in his field before his death-- باسم ( talk) 14:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete (change to redirect) this WP:BIO1E. and Redirect to 2018 Gaza border protests#6 April. Editors arguing "k" above have failed to produce any evidence that this individual was notable before he was killed along with several others while participating in the [[2018 Gaza border protests; and my search using Proquest news archive [15], limited to before 1 April 2018, found nothing. If an individual is even remotely notable by our standards, that search would have produced some sort of mention. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Did you also search in the Arabic language? Wakari07 ( talk) 15:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Proquest news archive searches on his fairly unique name of course show all languages writtn in the Latin alphabet. I date-limited my search to before 6 April 2018 - and Proquest found absolutely nothing. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep: not a WP:BIO1E situation and per WP:RAPID; plenty of coverage + on-going investigations. Deaths of journalists in conflict zones are generally notable; I don't see a reason to delete this article under current policies and guidelines. K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep several articles refer to him a well-known journalist within Palestine and cite why he was a well-known journalist, for his coverage of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, (e.g. surviving shujayea) his use of drones and his co-founding a media company in Palestine. Unlike other people killed, there has been much coverage about his death, per se, separate from the coverage of the 2018 Gaza protests. Thus, clear keep. -- JumpLike23 (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Per above.  Kou Dou 17:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• While an al-Durrah-style Pallywood production cannot be ruled out, the article is for now a Keep if nothing else because of calls from within Zionist Union Ministers of Parliament on the Knesset to put the supposed shooter on trial. ^[1]. XavierItzm ( talk) 19:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial and he is known only for his unfortunate death. I don't think he had an article if he wasn't killed in the demonstrations. His work not that significant. Sokuya ( talk) 19:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep — He isn't a "low-profile individual" as outlined in BLP1E. Work on Human Flow, multiple documentaries, and as founder of a media organization qualify him under WP:ARTIST. Independent coverage of the death is clearly specific to him and biographical: [16] [17] [18].-- Carwil ( talk) 20:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Interesting. Was he credited in any of those films? I am particularly puzzled by the claim abotu Human Flow. I see that the NPR story states that "Murtaja's colleagues said he'd done videography work for the BBC, VICE and other international media, and had worked with Chinese artist Ai Weiwei on his 2017 documentary, Human Flow," an Wei Wei film about the European migrant crisis. The NPR story does not support his participation, is there a source that does? and does it stat what his role was? I am looking for evidence of notability independent of the circumstances of his death. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• answering my own question, Murtaja is one of the many "assistant cameramen" credited, but I can find no secondary sources on mention his work as a cameraman until this week. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 01:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete Relevant information can be added to 2018 Gaza border protests.-- יניב הורון ( talk) 21:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep It's clearly plausible that he will ultimately be found notable enough for an independent article, either from his past work or from the consequences of his death or both. That's all that's needed to keep the article for now under WP:RAPID. FourViolas ( talk) 03:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment - what is lacking in all the Keep !votes is any sources (in English or Arabic) establishing notability - essentially we have a cameraman (one of hundreds in Gaza) who has done routine (yes, filming conflict in Gaza is routine for a cameraman) and got an "assistant cameramen" credit in Human Flow. He might have been first to fly a camera drone in Gaza (some sources say so - though fact checking this is difficult) - but that's not grounds for notability. In the meantime, following the burst of coverage around the funeral, coverage has mainly moves on to other issues regarding the conflict in Gaza. Icewhiz ( talk) 05:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• note on sourcing There is no doubt that this man's death during the 2018 Gaza border protests is notable within the context of those protests. However, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Editors argue that he was notable in life due to his work as a cameraman. However, his listing at IMDb, here: [19] shows only a single film on which he was an assistant cameraman. Moreover, searches on his name in a Proquest news archive search on aoo dates before 6 April 2018 produce nothing at all. Nor do searches in books and in scholarly journals. His life was sadly brief, but not notable. His death is notable within the context of the 2018 Gaza border protests, where it is already discussed. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete There is nothing notable about the person before he was killed, I have done a lot of searches on him and found nothing notable. The information about him as such could be added to the Gaza riots, also what I can find out he was a captain in the HAMAS security forces and a part-time photojournalist. BernardZ ( talk)
• Comment: 1. Shooting of Yaser Murtaja has already surpassed the GNG threshold: there is sustained coverage by multiple reliable sources of the shooting, funeral, investigation etc. So any "delete" votes should be rename votes. 2. We have several sources speaking to his notability as a journalist: "was a rising star in Gaza’s media scene where he was a co-founder of the Ain Media, a collective of a dozen local media professionals, which has worked with Al Jazeera, BBC Arabic and Vice in the past." ( Screen Daily); ; "He was a respected cameraman for documentaries - most notably, Al Jazeera's 'Gaza: Surviving Shujayea'." [20]; "Murtaja, a 30-year-old photographer well known for his drone footage" [21]. 3. The role of Murtaja in the events surrounding the protests (including the emergence of an Israeli investigation into civilian deaths), his role is arguable "substantial and well-documented" as required by BLP1E.-- Carwil ( talk) 17:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

A couple of problems with Carwil's argument. We can satisfy WP:PRESERVE by with a REDIRECT to 2018 Gaza border protests. Note that this is one of a series of investigations being undertaken into the deaths, which can and should be covered at 2018 Gaza border protests. (and note that media outlets are now reporting an allegation that he, like many of the projectile-throwing protest marchers, was a Hamas activist.) The press reports that he was a notable journalist or cameraman have not been substantiated; assertions of this sort are often made by mourners, which is why we have WP:NOTMEMORIAL. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep - obviously notable, there has been coverage on the Times of Israel and in less local news in general about Murtaja's death for a couple days now. However it is obvious that Murtaja is notable primarily through the way he died, so I would not be opposed to the article being moved to Shooting of Yaser Murtaja or Death of Yaser Murtaja if the article is kept. Inter&anthro ( talk) 14:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Snow keep pr all of the above, Huldra ( talk) 22:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Not a single event and has the sources to pass GNG. ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 22:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete a POV-pushing page with no demonstration of subjects notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to 2018 Gaza border protests per EM Gregory. There's no need for a separate bio or a "Death of" rename.-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 14:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete Was unknown before his death as was his media company. There has been some coverage, but this was not an isolated incident involving him. I have found no information involving his media company prior to his death. I doubt the media company was even a full time job as he was found to be on Hamas' payroll. Pennsylvania2 ( talk) 16:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• I've been wrestling back and forth on this question for the past several days, but ultimately I am persuaded to Delete by Icewhiz and E.M.Gregory. No sources have been provided that would tend to substantiate the notion that Murtaja was either notable by virtue of being a cameraman or that he was a notable cameraman. At this time, it would be appropriate to merge information on Murtaja's killing to 2018 Gaza border protests. The only thing that gives me pause is that, at some point—pending the results of the IDF's investigation and the volume of coverage from RS—it's possible that the section on Murtaja's killing could become large enough to justify a spinoff (not on the non-notable Yaser Murtaja, but rather on the possibly notable Killing of Yaser Murtaja). However, it is by no means clear that the current coverage demands such a split, or that 2018 Gaza border protests is too big to include all of the relevant information at this time. In any case, Murtaja himself is not notable merely by virtue of his untimely death. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 16:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Coverage is still ongoing [22] [23] [24] [25]. Apparently, many people aren't buying Israel's unsubstantiated claim that he was a member of Hamas. Editors are also forgetting, if he isn't notable as a person, the event is undoubtedly notable for Israel's disregard for the safety of the press and the ongoing investigation. All we would require is a title change and a slight change in focus. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 20:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep for three reasons:

1. He stands far ahead in terms of profile versus the other casualties of the recent weeks’ events: e.g. Audrey Azoulay, the DG of UNESCO, condemned his killing personally. [26]

2. His identity has been subject to intense political debate, with the Israeli Defence Minister leading the charge. [27] What resonates with me most here is that if he really was a “high-ranking member of the military wing of the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas”, we wouldn’t be having this deletion discussion - there are many articles covering such people in wikipedia.

3. There are already reasonably detailed articles on the same topic in the Arabic and Farsi Wikipedias. Technically this shouldn’t matter as each languange’s Wikipedia is autonomous, but to me it just shows the global angles here. Let’s not forget WP:WORLDVIEW.

Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment: those voting delete / redirect as BIO1E are ignoring the ongoing, diverse, international coverage of this rather unusual event (death of a journalist by the Israeli military while covering a protest). Unless people believe that such events are not "unusual"? See:

Global outrage mounts over Israeli killing of Yaser Murtaja, from ‘NYT’ to Federation of Arab Journalists | Mondoweiss

Killed Palestinian Journalist Had Passed U.S. Screening For Grant Funds | NPR

Terrorist or journalist? Who really was the slain Gazan Yaser Murtaja? | The Jerusalem Post

This definitely meets WP:NEVENT; whether the article is a biography or the Killing of Yaser Murtaja is immaterial to the notability of the subject. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Except that we already have an event, which is not overly long, 2018 Gaza border protests. Frankly I am surprised by your stance here K.e.coffman - going by this logic would lead to the notability of many recipients of the Knight's Cross who were covered in the press at the time and in subsequent publications. Nothing has been shown to establish the notability of the subject outside his death during 2018 Gaza border protests. Icewhiz ( talk) 18:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply

You still have hardly touched on why the event itself--the shooting by Israeli snipers (or, according to you, the "alleged" shooting by Israeli snipers)--is not notable. You cannot deny coverage is independent of the protests themselves. Considering your stance is to routinely keep articles on any Islamist or Palestinian terror attacks with the same amount of coverage, if not less, I am as surprised as you for not being open to shifting focus slightly to the shooting (or "alleged" shooting) itself. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 18:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Had the shooting (which is established fact AFAIK) occured in a context that did not have a wiki article - e.g. some non-notable otherwise border incodent, then yes - I would have supported a "shooting of" article. However as we already have an article on the clashes, there is little cause for individual wiki articles for casulties - even when they have some subsequent human interest and spin (from both sides) coverage the week after. Icewhiz ( talk) 18:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Icewhiz Islamist and Palestinian attacks occur in a context that both have Wikipedia articles as well. Yet I constantly see articles kept on attacks by an Islamist or Palestinian that may wound one person or kill just the perpetrator, and receive equal or less coverage. No lasting impact and nothing beyond the routine "human interest" as you described it. I know you can throw out WP:OSE as your next excuse, but do you not realize the double-standard you are supporting? Honestly? TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 19:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Because we do not have an article on the event (we do gave on the wider multi-year conflict). Casulty count is not a notability criteria. The parallel to this article would be individual casulty pages for 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict or Battle of Mosul (2016–2017) (and those are long pages, meriting spinoffs, unlike 2018 Gaza border protests presently. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply

My argument was more about the coverage and lasting impact, not casualty count, but whatever. The problem is you choose to not see the double standard. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 19:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment I'm clearly late to the party here, but it seems clear the article's subject is notable almost exclusively for how he was killed. Why don't we have a page, " Death of Yaser Murtaja" (or "killing" "shooting" etc, doesn't really matter), where the controversy over it can be discussed. I have seen such pages made for other such deaths protest situations, where the actual person who died wasn't notable except regarding how they died. -- Calthinus ( talk) 19:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply

This is part of the 3 week event 2018 Gaza border protests. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply

In fact we routinely include cases similar to this within the larger event. For example, two protestors have been killed in the very similar weekly protests at Bil'in in which projectiles are thrown from slingshots at Israeli soldiers guarding the security fence. The dead have sections, in the main article, Bil'in#Deaths not have independent articles. Or consider the protests last summer in Charlottesville, Virginia, U.S. , Unite the Right rally, where a car-ramming attack killed a protestor. Not only is there no article on the dead woman- despite massive coverage of her in the news at the time, the article on the car-ramming attack, 2017 Charlottesville attack, was redirected to Unite the Right rally#Vehicular attack and homicide. What I am not seeing in the "keep" arguments is a reason to maintain a separate article when we can follow our usual practice of WP:PRESERVE by redirecting to the main article on the protest. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

E.M.Gregory Well you may remember that I opposed the deletion of 2017 Charlottesville attack. Regarding deaths in protest situations, we do have Death of Neda Agha-Soltan-- it's obviously not the exact same situation but it still could be used for comparison. But in the end it will be what editors including yourself think is best for representing the info in a way that adheres to neutrality, notability and other guidelines. This is a way that memorial-esque aspects of the page (i.e. his love of traveling-- really not important in the grand scheme of things) while also producing a solution that is acceptable to what looks like the majority with the view that the event of his killing was notable and deserves a separate page. But I do also respect the views of those on both sides who have much more experience than myself in handling controversial topics in this domain. -- Calthinus ( talk) 01:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

counterexamples always exist, but we routinely redirect even victims like Taylor Force - who would pass the WP:10 year test due to the Taylor Force Act - to the article on the event. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather D. Heyer will be of interest to editors here. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 01:52, 15 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 Draft-ify - moved to draft by Spiritualbanda (non-admin closure) power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC) Extended closing note for @ Saqib: or others: My expectation was that by the creator moving the article to draft-space, it would not return to article space without being approved by WP:AfC. After an excessive amount of moves by the page creator, I have opened a new AfD at the article's new title, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indu Prakash (astrologer). power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Acharya Indu Prakash

Acharya Indu Prakash (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Most of the coverage about this Astrologer in India TV website which I think is not independent of the subject so fails GNG. Saqib ( talk) 12:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Acharya Indu Prakash is very famous astrologer in India. He is not only just TV Astrologer but awarded with numerous accolades and awards, I am getting more references and sources from more refined portals. He is an astrologer of many public figures that include politicians and Bollywood. He has also been awarded from US-based wall street journal. Well, I am moving that content to drafts, once my search will complete, I will then move it back to original article. I think it is fair enough. Trust me, He is among most famous astrologers in India.-- Spiritualbanda ( talk) 12:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Tip of the day

Tip of the day (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable, does not pass WP:GNG, as a concept: no reliable non-primary sources discuss the concept. Fails WP:NEO: all sources provided use the phrase, they don't mention it. See: Use–mention distinction. The keep voters from the last discussion didn't provide any reliable sources. wumbolo ^^^ 11:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep – using google, you can find tip of the day web features on many subjects. I even ran into one on meditation. Tip of the day features also abound in software programs. There are thousands of tip of the day features out there, some within programs that have millions of users.     — The Transhumanist    14:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

@ The Transhumanist: you provided an immediate reference to that website. Do you have a reliable reference for the fact that there are thousands of tip of the day features? wumbolo ^^^ 14:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

On google, "tip of the day" gets 14.6 million results (in comparison, " ski lift" returns 5.77 million results). I have yet to find a page about tip of the day features in general or about programmers including such a feature in a software's design, amongst the thousands of tip of the day features that come up. That is, in search results, any coverage there might be about them is obscured by links to the features themselves. They are a widespread element of modern information society. I don't think it serves our readers well to require our editors to play blind and pretend they don't exist. See WP:IAR. We should retain the article while the search for references continues.     — The Transhumanist    21:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply