Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 1

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

nn serial killer sourced from sensationalist sources Staszek Lem (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, in the book Queer in Russia: A Story of Sex, Self, and the Other there is a couple of sentences, but a lot more would be needed for a standalone, did find an article in the Russian WP, but they also have it up for deletion, the discussion is here, and doesn't look too good for the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am exceedingly skeptical about this allegedly notable serial killer because, under the spelling/name given, the sole hit in a ProQuest news search is a story in BBC Monitoring (the BBC service that translates articles from around the world,) and the relevant sentence reads: "Akhmat Azimov, chairman of the Russian Congress of the Caucasian Peoples, is interviewed on the goals of the congress. "We want to help the government and the public yada, yada..." Point is, with details this lurid there ought to have been some contemporary coverage in the Latin alphabet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not surprizing, actually. Who the heck cares what's up in some Uzbekistan-Smuzbekistan. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 2 references on the same day with the same title and nothing else cited. There is no significant coverage so it does not meet WP:GNG. I should add that I cannot verify the references cited because google translate cannot read them. They are just a bunch of random symbols. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nthep (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Notability is not inherited, his fiancé may be notable but that does not extend to him. The sources in the article aren't focused on him alone, but always in the context of his fiancé. Nothing supports notability independently. Ravensfire (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable businessman who fails WP:ANYBIO. Also lacking a credible claim to significant that is not inherited WP:NOTINHERITED from his family or fiancee.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I proposed deletion earlier, but it was removed. Natureium (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets the notability criteria to get verified HeyLetgoletgo (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note HeyLetgoletgo is the article's creator.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete verification is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Hello, Admin. I've added all the right citations which refers to him alone and got rid of all the errors. So kindly check and do not delete the page in a haste. Yes, the previous urls were linking him to his fiancee only, which is why I got rid of many. So please do check and reject the idea of speedy deletion. And one more thing, I think instead of the users suggesting it for deletion, they should work on improving the article, like I have. Improving an article, is much better then considering it for deletion. Thank You! --Princessruby (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the existing sources are either about him as a fiancé or relative of a notable person (WP:NOTINHERITED), or primary sources including press releases (WP:PRIMARY). Attempts to pad the article with trivia don't make a convincing case for notability. --bonadea contributions talk 07:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: Create a "personal life" section at Sonam Kapoor and redirect "Anand Ahuja" to that section. This is because they are set to marry tomorrow. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nominator. Redirecting a BLP to another BLP is a terrible practice. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Will re-open if sources are located within a reasonable amount of time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haar Jeet (TV series) (edit | 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:NOTABILITY Panam2014 (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unreferenced since February 2012 (two months before supposed cancellation), all plot and casting, premise description is clearly promotionally toned. Indian television shows are rarely notable. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep as per WP:TVSERIES nationally broadcast tv series are normally notable with offline sources if not online sources and Indian tv shows are no less notable than US series Atlantic306 (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: please provide sources.--Panam2014 (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • will search tomorrow, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • changed to weak keep as there could be offline sources but online could only find this that is directly about the show but somewhat promotional, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--Not an iota of decent sourcing, even in vernacular sources.All mentions appear to be semblant to trivial specks in interviews of lead actors in tabloids and entertainment supplements.No indepth coverage is existent.And, AFAIK, being a TV show is not an autoindicator of encyclopedic notability.~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frontera Emerging Markets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

nn business Staszek Lem (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH with the references in the article, and I am unable to find substantial English references about the company. This is about frontco.pl, which is separate from frontera.net. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - this winter has been long enough. I'm finding no consensus whether or not to redirect, but I note that all mention of Rightpedia has been removed from the Metapedia article as of right now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I cannot find a single reliable source that reports on Rightpedia in depth, aside from the two SPLC articles which are equally, if not more about Wikipedia/WMF's policies. This website woefully fails WP:NWEB and while it's interesting and has history for many long term editors here, outside of the Wikipedia-world, it's utterly irrelevant. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, possibly speedy - may fail WP:A7 as there is not a shred of notability to be seen. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kirbanzo I considered that first but the SPLC piece is significant despite not establishing notability. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - poor existing sourcing, and a Google search uncovers no media coverage. The SPLC alert, which is listed twice, isn't enough. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is the worst sourcing I've ever seen; Stormfront, Twitter, Wikipediocracy, and WP:SPI are all references. I don't see enough that meets GNG; the only thing I find not in the article is the RationalWiki article on it. The site itself has about 2 editors and barely loads, I doubt anyone would want to discuss it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hilariously poor referencing. There's some mildly interesting results on Google News, but nothing close to establishing notability. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very poor reference. Not very interesting at all. INeedSupport (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and possibly WP:SALT due to notability concerns namely being just self published sources out there. I would add salt here due to the socks that were all recently caught editing this page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails notability, poor sourcing. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (fully protected) with an optional very minimal merge to Metapedia where there is already a short explanation of this topic. That paragraph is sufficient coverage given that this is only a very minimally notable topic. If that can be expanded very slightly with a very little of the material here, and one or two of the better references, then that would be OK but I don't see sufficient sources for this to have its own article or even a large section in any other article. It is sufficient that anybody who wishes to know what it is can search for it and get redirected to a short paragraph telling them what it is. This is not the sort of topic where greater detail adds greater edification.
  Whatever the outcome here, I recommend permanent full protection in order to prevent the lolnazis and their sockpuppets from messing around with it. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with redirecting is that the sentence about it is totally unsourced. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 10:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is the SPLC source for that, so delete and redirect makes sense. The most important part is delete though, considering the total lack of significant coverage. Regards SoWhy 10:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SoWhy Normally I wouldn't push back on this but the one sentence mention of Rightpedia in the SPLC article supports virutally nothing in the paragraph on Metapedia. It's hardly meaningful and saying "Rightpedia was created by a neo-nazi from Metapedia" is rather silly. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrissymad: It supports the fact that RP is a fork of MP and since RP is a possible search term, it makes sense to redirect as long as it's mentioned in the MP article. As I said though, deletion is more important. Redirect can always be created later. Regards SoWhy 19:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Much as I am sure this must be notable, I can actually find no decent sources for it. So I have to vote delete.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails GNG. Redirect so long as the mention at Metapedia stays. Don't see a need to salt yet. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Not seeing the need to WP:SALT yet. -- Dane ^talk 16:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. Not notable. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 23:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nominator should try WP:PROD next time. wumbolo ^^^ 15:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and then redirect to Metapedia (again on the basis it's discussed there, so a redirect makes sense and allows someone searching us something to find, and it wouldn't be a bad idea to have somewhere where it's made clear how disgusting the site is. Don't salt, I don't think there's a need yet. Doug Weller talk 16:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to North Dakota State Bison#Media. Randykitty (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bison Illustrated (edit | 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:Notability. A search does not show sources outside of the brand itself or its parent company. Editor10293813 (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect. North Dakota loves the Bison, and this publication is cited frequently in connection with NDSU sports reporting (here's one from Sports Illustrated:[1]), but other than a non-NPOV university press release announcing its first issue [2] I don't find much to suggest it needs its own, separate article. The magazine is already mentioned in the main NDSU article; I suggest adding a similar sentence at North Dakota State Bison#Media and calling it a day. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Arxilos; perfectly legitimate publication but the article's current state seems to demonstrate that a separate article can't really be justified based on independent coverage. It can correctly and usefully be mentioned in the general article about NDSU. ~ mazca ^talk 22:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it is worth, I have added information about the magazine to the media section in the North Dakota State Bison article. Editor10293813 (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - agree with above consensus - not enough for a standalone - works as a redirect. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 04:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Was dePRODed without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: Sources are all primary, interviews, local interest sites, or only fleeting mentions. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no sources proving notability, no notable Ghits either. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not seem to pass notability Wolfson5 (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO. Septrillion (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

We don't create disambiguation pages for Second child of the Prince and Princess of Wales, or Fourth child of the King and Queen of England, or Third child of the Emperor and Empress of Russia, etc. Why it should take 4 attempts to get this page deleted is beyond me. The concept is absurd. No respectable encyclopedia draws up such lists. This is a very unlikely search term and even if readers were searching using this term, they can still do so and still be directed to the correct article through the search results. DrKay (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I would not want to insult the closing administrator's intelligence by further explaining why. Surtsicna (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Has there been any proposal to create a new project called "Dis-ambiguation pages for deletion"?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a bit off topic, but see WP:DABFD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to current kid, who's birth I did not receive notification of, nor am I invited to the Christening. Page should never have been deleted in the first place, back during the pregnancy. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "current kid" is not the only person this could refer to. Should The first daughter of the President of the United States redirect to Ivanka Trump? And of course pages about celebrity pregnancies should not exist. Surtsicna (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, with precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (2nd nomination). -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just a place-holder until Prince Louis was named, not needed now.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT - no longer needed,and I doubt we'd need this as a redirect. Also SALT to prevent this from happening again.Kirbanzo (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you think someone would recreate it after it's deleted? If it has already been recreated a couple times, sure, but that seems super unlikely to me. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It being recreated and deleted 4 times is absurd. A SALT is definitely in order - besides, better safe than sorry. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, before the child was born, the article was recreated a few times, but that's now at Prince Louis of Cambridge and stable. I don't see people using this specific title any longer. For example, Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge wasn't recreated after the disambiguation was deleted back in 2015. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I think DrKay was referring to the fact that this has been nominated for speedy deletion, prodded and now AFD'd since the content was moved to Prince Louis of Cambridge.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably. But this leads to a partial answer to the nominator's question: because the speedy deletion nomination wasn't valid. At the time of this nomination, the page was a redirect to Prince Louis of Cambridge, and the criterion it was nominated under was G4. Was the previously deleted version a redirect to Prince Louis of Cambridge? I somehow doubt it. — Smjg (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDIR.Icewhiz (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All Google results for "third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" are about Prince Louis of Cambridge. A disambiguation page is not necessary. The term has never been used in reference to Princess Amelia of Great Britain or Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge. Firebrace (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Not true. e.g. "Princess Mary Adelaide ... is the third child of the late Duke of Cambridge ..." (Illustrated London News 14 Jun 1868 [3]. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The article is not titled "third child of the late Duke of Cambridge". Try harder. Firebrace (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  "Try harder"? Without too much effort I've given a counter-example to your speculative and unprovable opinion that "The term has never been used...". Google's a bit short of material from 1711, so I suppose I could try harder, given a good archive library, to see if the term was actually used for Princess Amelia, but instead I'll just smile at your cheek. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It isn't a "term" - it's just a descriptive phrase. But regardless of what it is, I concur: how on earth can you prove that nobody has ever, in speech or writing, referred to Amelia or Mary Adelaide as the "third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge"? — Smjg (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as completely unnecessary. Rupert Rostenkowski (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for just about all the reasons already mentioned to avoid creating a useless "directory" listing, and as per the precedent of having deleted equivalent pages for George and Charlotte. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (facing into the snow) because I see a disambiguation page with 3 valid entries and no policy/guidance reason to delete (except perhaps WP:NOTDIR). This discussion reads like Arguments to avoid bingo. So far I can spot "No respectable encyclopedia..." (WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC), "absurd" and "insult ... intelligence" (WP:IDL), "not needed" and "completely unnecessary" (WP:WEDONTNEEDIT), "All Google results..." (WP:GOOGLEHITS) and "all the reasons already mentioned" (WP:EVERYONEELSE). House!  :-) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WEDONTNEEDIT applies to articles, not disambiguation pages, which is what we are discussing here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• For that matter even the WP:NOTDIR comment is a mere WP:VAGUEWAVE! Notwithstanding, it gives weight to most of the other arguments, and while we now have proof that "third child..." has been used to refer to at least one of the other dab targets, it is hardly a plausible 21st Century search term for anyone other than Prince Louis. So I'll change my WP:EVERYONEELSE to WP:NOTDIR, coupled with the precedent of his siblings' pages. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: if this was unambiguous it would be deleted at WP:RfD as a redirect from a (now?) implausible search term; there's no justification for creating a dab page just because a couple more potential targets can be dreamed up. PamD 11:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Related discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 2#Second son of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This now has no obvious purpose and I cannot image it is a term people are going to search for. Dunarc (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the title thing is sufficiently explained on the baby's page.17:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Delete -- I was going to suggest a simple redirect, but find that we have two other possible targets. However this is not a very useful search term . Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and restore the redirect, as above, to maintain inbound link support. James F. (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milestone (music venue) (edit | 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 local business. Despite the grandiose claims made about this place, it seems no one has written about it outside the local community. Fails WP:NCORP. John from Idegon (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions.  samee  converse  21:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Those doing a broader WP:BEFORE might find it worth looking at the page history before Nom appeared, since some aggressive removal of non-cited work have rather aggressively trimmed the article, and they might give a chance to find something. My brief search (too little to cast a vote, yet) only found either the local sources given, or very brief mentions in several books about North Carolina music/musicians. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not in the business of providing free web hosting. The stuff myself and others trimmed were unsubstantiated highly grandiose claims that would require really good sources. I found no good sources even local. Just the theatre group (whose Wikipedia article had the same creator and is equally weak) and a local entertainment website, whose reliability is questionable. I have doubts that the brief mentions found in books are anything but circular. If the grandiose claims can be substatiated, yeah, this place is probably notable. Maybe I'm jaded, but this sure seems like PR hype. John from Idegon (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't denying that they were unlikely, just that they might indicate a few places worth looking in a proper WP:BEFORE. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no notable Ghits - fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:NCORP. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - run of the mill music venue - fails WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - for the reasons given by the three above. Conditional if anyone finds anything that might support the earlier version. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well- I 'm unsure exactly more I need to find. Should I contact the various bands of note that have played there to provide a letter of support? But how and where should I publish and provide that? What more sources will I need to provide? (John from Idegon thought this article wasn't appropriately cited: http://www.charlottemagazine.com/Charlotte-Magazine/October-2009/Musical-Milestone/) I'm not saying every place should have a wiki page devoted to it- but this particular spot may need to have a second look due to not only it's age but the bands that were upstarts coming through just before they became national or radio hits. If you can't take local newsprint, or regional magazines- it begs to ask, how can I or anyone prove something here? I'm more than willing to do the research and find a proper way to present this, I just need to know what that is to satisfy someone like John from Idegon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckbutt23 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duckbutt23, it's not a case of 'satisfy someone like John from Idegon', and that personalisation is not appropriate, especially as John is a highly experienced editor. It has to do with satisfying Wikipedia's criteria for notability which the Milestone venue clearly doesn't - see Quasimodo (music venue) for an example of a notable music pub - note its sources in the established, nation-wide quality press. Note also that notability is not inherited - the artists who have played there, while mentioned, do not add to the notability Wikipedia requires. It's the sources that count. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:NCORP. Septrillion (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 04:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Non-notable product and also fails WP:GNG. There have been no significant coverage about the product for 7 years. I did some research for some other possible reliable sources, but there was none -- only a news article from BevNet which also fails WP:RS Romrom9 (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The notability of the subject is severely brought into question by a combination of (a) sources of questionable reliability, (b) a lack of substantial coverage therein outside of routine local news and (c) the questionable nature of "first female (rank) from (locality)" as any kind of encyclopedic claim to notability in the first place. Consensus, based on guidelines/policies on substantial news coverage other than routine in confirmed reliable sources does not seem to support keeping this questionably notable BLP. ~ mazca ^talk 22:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC) ~ mazca ^talk 22:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suhai Aziz Talpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

NAC of last AfD by user who has now been topic-banned. Claim to notability is that she "is considered to be the first female from Lower Sindh to reach the rank of ASP in the Pakistan Police Services." Not the first female police officer, but the first female from a certain location to reach a certain rank. Most of the coverage is about routine police activities she is involved in, which is inherent in being a police officer, see also WP:ROUTINE. I don't see any in-depth coverage, aside from some public interest articles about a female from the certain place serving in a certain police role. Including facts like "When Talpur's parents first decided to enroll her at a school, most of their relatives started "taunting" the familty. They eventually decided to leave the village and move to a nearby town". I just don't see it passing WP:N, and I want to get clear consensus since past AfD was involved in the recent AfD topic bans. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There was 4-0 consensus to Keep this article at its previous AfD. The subject has received significant coverage in reputable press. Her achievement in being the first female police officer from Sindh seems significant, and follow-up articles show she has had continuing success in the role. We have articles about people who are notable for much less impressive achievements. Our test of notability is not whether you personally are interested by what made someone notable but whether journalists and other reliable sources are interested. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that is not really a response to this nomination, and I don't see any useful factual or policy assertions. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the users who voted keep in previous AfD are now XFD topic banned. --Saqib (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information, which I did not know. I see a topic ban from AfDs for Arif80s. Which of the other 3 keep votes is topic banned? HouseOfChange (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The one who made strong keep vote. --Saqib (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification From WP:N: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." This nomination admits, as 4 other people also stated in the previous AfD discussion, that Talpur has indeed received "in-depth coverage" including details that describe her childhood and education. Please cite policy justification that this in-depth coverage should not establish notability because 1) you personally do not consider her achievement significant and 2) in-depth coverage of her occurred in "public interest articles." Is there a policy exception somewhere denouncing "public interest articles"? I rarely see any other kind of article used as a source of significant biographical detail for our biographies. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "First female ASP from lower Sindh" is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia, unless meet GNG. Search doesn't produce any significant coverage in the independent RS about the person except only one human interest story so Can't see any significance, --Saqib (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I clicked through the references and there is significant discussion about this person to satisfy WP:GNG.[4][5][6] Per WP:NEXIST, there are likely more sources in her native language. Lonehexagon (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lonehexagon: You may don't know, but two of the sources (awamiweb.com and jworldtimes.com) you provided are not reliable by any means. --Saqib (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Do you have more information about that? Lonehexagon (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lonehexagon: More information about these two sources being unreliable? Being a Pakistani, I never saw their usage as a RS anywhere, on or off Wikipedia. If it make sense to you I would say try external links search. Awamiweb.com cited nowhere whereas the latter one is cited in a couple of articles and should be removed outright. --Saqib (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:NBIO. No notable Ghits. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- no indications of notability beyond being first woman. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article about an ideology related to a brazillian politician. Such article doesn't exist in portuguese and the existance of the ideology itself is dubious. The sources used are not neutral. They are mostly left wing media that criticizes this right wing politician Holy Goo (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete and redirect to Jair Bolsonaro#Political views. Delete because the content is heavily non-NPOV sources. especially the ridiculous "cult of personality" part: every noisy politician has his claque, so what?. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The term is not mentioned in that section because no reliable sources exist for it. If there's at least two reliable sources that can attest to the term's usage, then may be we should consider redirect. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and/or Redirect - I am Brazilian and I assert that this is not a formal term, not even a recurring term. The same should be done with Lulism.Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete and no need of redirect. First delete the article because it is promotinion of non notable term based on dubious sources. No decent sources exis for it. Then there's no need for redirect because no evidence of the terms usage (which is different from notability) even in suboptimal sources. Only this wikipedia article and another dictionary definition, which doesn't have relationship with this concept–exist when you search the term. Redirect is meant for termsusagee ery likely to be search based on evidence not just because it is created, let's leave it. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: not notable WP:ADVOCACY page. I don't see a need for a redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No redirect becuase Ammarpad demonstrated a lack of plausibility. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 12:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article is a dictionary entry and Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT). -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 15:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Despite tons of results about Abraham Malpan, I'm not finding evidence that this is an encyclopedically notable concept. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've found a few references (such as [7] [8]) but they say little more than that this is a Syriac term for teacher. I'm not sure if some article about teachers could discuss this term with a redirect there (keeping history), or if it should just be deleted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:DICDEF. Septrillion (talk) 04:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Mcintyre (edit | 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 due to lack of any significant coverage in reliable sources. Claim to notability is a nonexistent world record category. Sole source is 146 words at Sun City Biker, which appears to be a copy-paste of a press release from a motorcycle dealership. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Only reference is to another Wikipedia page which makes no mention of this person. A search also returns no notable info about this person. Editor10293813 (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Zero indication of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A speedy candidate if I ever saw one. Husounde (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Shah Abdul Haq Gillani (edit | 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 indication of notability, no reliable sources. I couldn't find any better sources when I searched for them; Google News and Dawn don't yielt any results. Huon (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of my searches came up bare as well. I had previously tagged the page with BLPPROD but the creator added a few links; even then, the references they added were questionable. Nanophosis (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete notability not asserted.  samee  converse  11:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No claim to notability. Fails WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability. Septrillion (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I considered closing as redirect but really doesn't make sense as anyone searching for it would find WWE Greatest Royal Rumble anyway J04n(talk page) 14:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Greatest Royal Rumble Trophy (edit | 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 notability in the trophy Galatz^Talk 14:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz^Talk 14:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The WWE Greatest Royal Rumble Trophy was awarded to Braun Strowman after he won the 50-men Royal Rumble match. Aren't you aware of the latest events going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamza Ahmad Wiki Scientist (talk • contribs) 15:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hamza Ahmad Wiki Scientist: So? What makes this trophy notable? There already is an article for the event itself at WWE Greatest Royal Rumble and the belt given with the trophy at WWE Greatest Royal Rumble Championship. Why on earth would we need this too? What stand alone notability does the trophy have? - Galatz^Talk 15:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Whilst it could at some point become something, right now it's as important as any kayfabe "match winnings". If the trophy had some press, or had some relevence, it would be a harder delete. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The trophy may not be important to you, but it is significant, and if this page is deleted, then someone else may create it again. I hope you can't put this deletion tag everywhere. And the WWE Greatest Royal Rumble Championship page is even created by me. User:Hamza Ahmad Wiki Scientist
  • @Hamza Ahmad Wiki Scientist: I suggest you read wikipedia's guidelines for notability as you do not seem to have an understanding of them. - Galatz^Talk 17:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The event in itself is notable. The trophy is not. The argument "someone else may create it again" doesn't hold any water, as if it is recreated, and doesn't address the reasoning for deletion, it will be deleted again. It's a kayfabe award for a one-off event, and doesn't hold any significance outside it. The battle royale held every Wrestlemania has a trophy awarded to the winner. That trophy does not have it's own article, which is a very good sign that this itself is not notable enough to warrant inclusion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To tag that thought, we actually just moved the article to the battle royal over the trophy because consensus was the match was notable and not the trophy itself. And also the article could always be WP:SALTed to avoid recreation if there was an issue with recreation. I am not nominating the belt for now, I am undecided on it, because that is something that time will tell. If its carried around and used like a real belt then it has a case, but the trophy wont be, so to be this one is clear, the belt is too soon. Hamza Ahmad Wiki Scientist you might also want to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT in your free time. - Galatz^Talk 17:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The WWE Greatest Royal Rumble event and the WWE Greatest Royal Rumble Championship sufficiently cover this topic . - ZSJUSA
• Redirect to WWE Greatest Royal Rumble. I think WWE Greatest Royal Rumble Championship should be grouped into this AfD and redirected as well. Neither of these are notable in their own right, and the latter is just a prize, not an actual championship. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've nominated that for deletion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Greatest Royal Rumble Championship Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Also, the WWE Greatest Royal Rumble Championship is completely wrong in its treatment of the belt that was awarded. It is not a regular championship title at all. It is not listed as a current championship on the WWE website, and that's the definitive source, so I've already removed it from the navbox and list article. It's exactly like this trophy, in that it has absolutely no separate notability from the event. oknazevad (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC) PS NotTheFakeJTP and I had the exact same point at the exact same time.[reply]
• Delete - the event was clearly notable. The trophy awarded to the winner has no independent notability -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's basically the Greatest Royal Rumble version of the Andre the Giant Memorial Trophy. And as for the notability, WP:DOUBT. Also, don't flag things for deletion just because there is no notability (aka WP:ZEALOUS). Hansen Sebastian 04:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yet the consensus was the Andre the Giant Memorial Trophy was not notable, therefore your argument makes no sense. Also WP:ZEALOUS is not an argument for lack for notability, that is why you delete things around here. - Galatz^Talk 11:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to WWE Greatest Royal Rumble; redirects are cheap. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no notability. Septrillion (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Biography is sourced only to a single entry on the non-RS discogs. A BEFORE search finds no relevant mentions on Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, or newspapers.com. Chetsford (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a notable musician. There are no significant coverage in reliable sources. KingAndGod 13:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Keep argument clearly state that they feel criteria 1 and 3 of NMOTORSPORTS are met, and why. Rest of keep !votes either parrot this statement or add nothing to the analysis. Delete argument does not state why the keep argument analysis of NMOTORSPORTS is incorrect. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calan Williams (edit | 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 previously deleted stub about racing driver with no wins. Still fails GNG. Calton | Talk 03:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Euroformula Open is a still very low-level of motorsport and the driver fails WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Williams competed and won the National Formula 3 championship in Australia winning races at all rounds. The Australian Formula 3 Premier Series is the highest level of formula racing in Australia and of national interest. HockeyHero88 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per HockeyHero88. Meets criteria 1 and 3 of WP:NMOTORSPORTS, and is also in the currently proceeding 2018 Euroformula Open Championship, which clinches the matter in my opinion. SunChaser (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete special pleading aside, he does not meet the notability standards for notability of motor sports competitiors, which like all other sports notability criteria we currently have are ludicrously low.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep clearly meets WP:NMOTORSPORT. FloridaArmy (talk) 07:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I know zero about motor sport but if the content in the article is correct, then the subject meets more than one NMOTORSPORT criteria. Aoziwe (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. J04n(talk page) 14:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gairrett Brothers band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Poorly sourced article, with some advertorial undertones, about a band whose only discernible claim of notability is that one member went on to play as a supporting session musician for more notable solo artists. This is not an WP:NMUSIC pass, but nothing else here appears to be one either -- and apart from one directory entry on an unreliable "musical rarities" fansite, the only other referencing here is unnecessary retriplication of a single article in their own hometown newspaper. But if a band doesn't have any notability claim that would pass any of NMUSIC #2 through #12, then it takes quite a lot more than just one piece of hometown coverage to get them over NMUSIC #1. Bearcat (talk) 07:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 09:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 09:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The references are a compendium of Norman Petty productions and one dedicated article in a regional reliable source. The search tools provide nothing but confirmation of the dedicated article. Not close to WP:NM. Out the revolving door. Tapered (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agatha Magtibay Almeda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a fictional character, which is written entirely in-universe and shows no evidence of real-world context for what would make her notable enough to have her own standalone article separately from already being discussed in The Blood Sisters (TV series). The sourcing here isn't cutting it, either: two of the four footnotes are to the show's own self-published content about itself; one is to a profile of the actress (not the character) on a user-generated "social news network"; and one is to a reaggregation of content about the actress originally published on a WP:BLOG -- which means that exactly zero of them are reliable and notability-supporting sources. As always, making a fictional character notable enough for her own article requires context and impact in the real world, not just the ability to write "biographical" content about her life inside her own fictional universe. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -WayKurat (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There's a perfectly adequate description of the character at The Blood Sisters (TV series)#Main Cast. Narky Blert (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Septrillion (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein's thought experiments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Original research and not a suitable topic for WP. Has many problems: consists of unencyclopaedic writing from the first paragraph ("In his youth, he rode beams of light"), and only gets more florid later on. Numerous lengthy quotes and sections written as lists not prose. But primarily is original research, relying heavily on interpreting primary sources. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I provide many primary source references for people who are interested, I have carefully made sure that all statements and claims that I made in the article are based on reliable secondary sources.

Please provide a list of statements that you claim represent wp:OR of primary source material. I will be able to justify all of them with quotations from secondary sources. Some may require my scanning books and journals that are not available online. In those cases, I will upload scans of the secondary source material to Google Drive for you to examine.

Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Einstein's thought experiments are well known, unique, and his use of them is an encyclopaedic topic. According to Sophie Roux in Thought Experiments in Methodological and Historical Contexts, "Every elementary textbook on thought experiments begins with or at least includes a catalogue of Einstein's famous thought experiments". The examples given are not OR. They are, for the most part, the well known and most cited examples. Florid language can be cleaned up, AfD is not cleanup. SpinningSpark 18:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per Spinningspark - Deletion is not cleanup. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. No OR, but could use some wikicyclopedizing (aka unpaperizing). - DVdm (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be helpful to create a separate Primary Sources reference group so that people can clearly distinguish between primary source material and secondary references. I included a lot of links to primary source material because I am an amateur historian of science, and I happen to love this stuff. But, as is evident from the Afd nomination, my inclusion of so many links to primary source material can be misunderstood.

I'm not sure what to do about my "florid" writing. To me, it is "engaging" writing. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors are the people who can help you with that. Make a request there. SpinningSpark 22:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've segregated primary sources into a separate group from other references. There are a few places where I could add an additional secondary source reference. Isaacson was my "go to" source, but I was using it so much, I was worried about running out of letters of the alphabet, so I sometimes didn't stick it in at a few points where I probably should have. What happens after you reach the letter "z"? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as content is very notable, but style of writing needs to be toned down. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep - scanning the article, nothing stood out as requiring deletion of the article. Needs editing of the "engaging" writing and focusing on "thought experiments". Added "tone" template since that seems to be an early consensus and it can warn the readers as well as flag editors. StrayBolt (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had originally intended the article to be simply a recounting of Einstein's documented thought experiments, ignoring the numerous pastiches that people have claimed to be from Einstein, but which really, like Washington and the cherry tree, represent later fabrications. (Twins in rocket ships and some later variations on the elevator gedanken go in this category.) It would also have allowed me to present nearly a dozen lesser known thought experiments, including a fascinating set that he devised while considering, and refuting, Nordström's theory of gravitation. But I discovered that focusing on the thought experiments themselves, as you seem to suggest, resulted in a dry, disconnected narrative. Rather, I found it much better to focus on a few of Einstein's most important thought experiments and to explain the context in which they were presented. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, ? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the topic is notable; secondary sources are used. --D.H (talk) 07:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup/keep Useful article. --MaoGo (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Important topic. There are plenty of sources available. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is an incomprehensible nomination. Anyone who knows anything about the history of science, when hearing the phrase "thought experiment", will immediately think of Einstein. These thought experiments form the basis of much of the physics of the last century. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep It needs some cleanup and there is plenty of sources, also it is a important topic. Felicia (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Years ago, I had read Einstein Defiant, by Edmund Bolles, and from that book, I had gotten the mental image of an aging genius completely unable to adapt to the new paradigm of quantum mechanics. A few days ago, I read this article and was stunned. I immediately borrowed Stone’s biography from the library and everything checks out! I have no idea what the nominator meant when he claimed that this article represented original research because everything is documented in secondary sources. Maybe, like myself, he found the view of Einstein presented in this article completely different from everything he had previously learned, and he just didn’t believe what he was reading. Last night, I borrowed Isaacson’s biography from the library, and so far, I can attest to the accuracy of the sourcing. This is one of the best articles in Wikipedia. 24.173.36.59 (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Sabur Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced info, Primary sources and announcement of his being selected as the director of some org. No significant works and coverage. Mar11 (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Chairman of a nationally significant Chamber of Commerce and winner of several awards. Arman ^(Talk) 04:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. Coverage is in passing, WP:SPIP and / or not independent of his executive position. Wikipedia is not a CV hosting service. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Looking at WP:ANYBIO, this article does not seem to fit. -Handoto 00:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Handoto (talk • contribs)

• Delete - no notability. Septrillion (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I almost feel bad because the subject seems to be doing interesting work, but still fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Even if the promotional tone were fixed, I don't think notability exists. Four of five references on the article are created by the subject himself (his site, his organization, and his Facebook page). The only somewhat independent source is a youth blog that may not be reliable. Even if the "youth legend" source is reliable and independent, the coverage is just an interview and there are not multiple independent sources. I could not find any other significant coverage in reliable independent sources in English (he's mentioned in passing in a number of articles, but none are significant); my apologies if they exist in another language. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Many citation and sources have been added to the article, Many of the sources are in the Nepali Language also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nepwiky (talk • contribs) 08:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no claim of significance in the article despite lots of refs. Szzuk (talk) 08:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that WP:POLITICIAN is not met J04n(talk page) 14:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unsuccessful candidate for political office that isn't notable otherwise. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won yet — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable as a politician. And no, the volume of media coverage shown here is still not enough to make his candidacy a special case over and above everybody else's candidacy (a standard that isn't attained until you're approaching Christine O'Donnell levels of coverage and notoriety), because every candidate in every election everywhere could always show at least this much media coverage of the campaign. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NPOL per Bearcat's sound explanation above. Marquardtika (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NPOL and not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer talk 01:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the rationale provided by Tomwsulcer in the first deletion discussion. To quote his argument word for word: "yes failed politician bio but passes the general notability guideline. As a reminder, the politician rule says Just being ... an unelected candidate ... does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" and Jacob easily passes with in-depth coverage here and here and here and here and here and here and elsewhere. The nominator's argument that All of the coverage surrounding him is about his campaigns and he doesn't therefore meet WP:GNG is bogus -- it would be like saying that all of the coverage about Henry Ford was about his automobile business, therefore it doesn't count and he doesn't meet the GNG. Politicians get covered about politics; business people about business. Both Ford and Jacob are notable" I must add that I feel only two months between the closing of the first nomination as no consensus and the initiation of another deletion discussion seems rather quick. I am reminded of the January 2017 discussion to delete the article covering Evan McMullin with the rationale being that he was a failed candidate, but it closed rather quickly as a SNOW keep because the number of sources covering the campaign demonstrated notability. Vermin Supreme lost every election he ran for by a wide margin, being a clearly failed candidate (and a frivolous literal joke one at that) but the attention he received made him notable. Peter Jacob has received significant coverage in his current race and has received the endorsements of significant political action committees, proving notability. A notable stub article is still an article (though it's also worth noting that the article is well above stub rating). Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that every candidate in every election always gets some media coverage in that context. But candidates are not inherently notable just for being candidates — so a candidate's basis for includability is not "the purely expected media coverage of the campaign itself exists", but either (a) "enough media coverage exists to deem this person's candidacy a permanent ten year test-passing special case over and above most other people's candidacies", or (b) "the sourcing demonstrates that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons besides being a candidate per se". And no, endorsements don't assist a candidate's notability either, because again, virtually every candidate in every election can always tout endorsements by somebody. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets GNG. References in the article and support the article: The Times of India, Politicker Network, NJ Spotlight, Daily Record (Morristown), Our Revolution, CBS News, Washington University in Saint Louis, The New York Times, NJ.com/The Star-Ledger, Insider NJ, India West NDTV Justice Democrats, The Economic Times, The Hindu is beyond normal coverage. Candidate is victim of racially motivated attack and is running is second campaign.Djflem (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- fails WP:POLITICIAN. In the previous AfD, I provided an analysis of the sources which remain the same. For example it is very disingenuous to cite the New York Times as a source that establishes notability when in reality all they have are a list of election results. That probably the most extreme example, but the other sources are not indepth coverage either.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Looking at WP:NPOL, this article does not provide much use. The first point at WP:NPOL does not state running candidates. Handoto 00:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Handoto (talk • contribs)

• Keep WP:GNG met. Hmlarson (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete PROMO for a candidate with no claim to notability except for the fact that he is a candidate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that we have recently deleted articles on 2 other candidates for the Democratic nomination in this district, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Weber (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Pringle (activist) (3rd nomination); the latter had considerably more claim to pre-candidacy notability than Jacob has. This is how WP:POL works. Editors who DONOTLIKE it might try to change the rules, but as long as we have such rules, we follow them.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He hasn't even won the primary yet? Fails NPOL and doesn't get enough significant coverage to meet GNG.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.(non-admin closure) per G7. Shellwood (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Consensus at Talk:Mehra (caste) was that the article had numerous issues, including WP:BLP violations and an apparent failure to meet WP:GNG. It was basically a caste glorification thing. Per those discussions, I turned the redirect at Mehra into a surname list, moved the list of names to that new list and PRODed this article. The creator reverted me, despite a clear consensus that the article was inappropriate. Hence, here we are with another waste of time caused by the PROD rules' inability to handle new, often pov-pushing user accounts. Sitush (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Just noting that the discussion appears to be taking place at Talk:Mehra (caste). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--Someone, please copy the t/p sections and close this AfD.~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

List of Japanese supercentenarians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This page is nearly 100% duplicative of List of supercentenarians from Asia with only one name on the other list. There is no point maintaining two lists. Legacypac (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Just because one person does not want this article does not outweigh the many of us who want it to stay. Is it the fault of the Japanese that they have the bulk of the supercentenarians located in Asia? As time progresses and more cases are identified in other parts of Asia the two lists will continue to evolve and differ. If the person who nominated the deletion wants a change then why do they not propose that the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supercentenarians_from_Asia is deleted? Crveni5 (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment Which page gets more hits? The top 100 Asian list or the top 100 Japanese list? Crveni5 (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Firstly, the page is not just a duplicate of List of supercentenarians from Asia with the exception of one name. It also includes information specific to Japan; living Japanese supercentenarians, and a chronological list of the oldest person in Japan since 1992 which are not on the Asian page. I also agree that as time passes more cases will be identified (able to be verified) in other parts of Asia, specifically China and India and it is premature to discuss removing the page for Japan, a country with the second most verifiable number of supercentenarians.TFBCT1 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep I agree with Crveni5 and TFBCT1. - Alumnum (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is your WP:CRYSTAL ball working? Legacypac (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm all for condensing these lists down as much as possible but I reckon it'd be better to keep this one and redirect/delete the Asian one. Googling some of these names and you'll find a mention they're the oldest in Japan (country) but no mention of Asia (the continent). And like you said, the only difference is 4 immigrants who belong on their country of death lists and Yisrael Kristal who is covered in the oldest men list. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment Noticed a bit of canvassing for this discussion so I have added the appropriate notavote tag. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're canvassing comment is in reference to someone leaving me a message regarding this concern on my talk page. For the record, I've been updating the Japanese page on a daily basis since 2015 which means my input is more than warranted and it should be reasonably presumed that I would have certainly noticed this discussion anyway.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, the 110 Club is at it again, encouraging its members to come here and vote against the proposal, so the canvassing tag is appropriate. Canadian Paul 15:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per others. Article is not merely a duplication of the Asia article; this one has extra statistics and Japan-specific information the other one does not. I'd also be fine with CommanderLinx's proposal above, namely redirecting the Asia article to this one. There is nothing unencyclopedic about this list; look at (on the same subject) Oldest people, List of oldest living people, and List of the verified oldest people, all of which exist and to my knowledge have not been challenged. 65HCA7 22:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for delete have been set forth since the article has been moved and improvements have been made. By all appearances GNG has been met and the subject has been shown to be notable within the field. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Searches turned up not a single in-depth source regarding this individual. Books turned up a few trivial mentions, but nothing which would meet WP:GNG, certainly doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC nor WP:NARTIST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Userfy or Draftify Keep (per below) as this is a new user who struggled to put the article into userspace (first moving to Wikipedia: space). The subject of the article has a strong shot at notability, as she was very active in the 80's (pre-internet of course) [9]. The article still needs work, despite The Mighty Glen's effort to clean it up. The COPYVIO flag for the list of articles seems incorrect, and easy enough to fix: are copyrightable lists as such even copyrightable? For example: recipes are not. I put a Speedy on there, because I think the quality of the article is too rough to have on wiki in its current state, and the new editor should have the opportunity to learn how to make it correct. Theredproject (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy userfy or draftify per User:Theredproject. I've seen lists of artists exhibitions deleted as copyvio breaches of fair use before, but I don't really know copyright law in sufficient detail. So I'll simply leave that last copypaste tag in place, and let an editor who does know to make a decision. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Seems I missed the fact that the article title is a typo. The artist's real name is Copper Giloth, not Cooper. Agree with the draftify/userfy above. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi all - I'm not going to argue for or against deletion since I watched over this class under my work account, Shalor (Wiki Ed). Looking at the page, it looks like the works section is actually a list of news articles that were written about Giloth as opposed to things she created. I'll try and do some cleanup as the class has ended and I'm not sure that the student would return to edit the article. Give me the evening to see if I can fix this? ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think I've added enough to establish notability. Part of the issue here is that Giloth was more active prior to the widespread use of the Internet, as most newspapers don't really upload their articles pre-2000. I've found some mention of her in various books, where she's credited as being a pioneer within her field, and she's also been featured in some exhibitions at major museums such as MoMA, which would be enough to establish notability. As far as the copyvio goes, there's no real way to re-write citations or even a list of works in general, so I would say that this is safe from speedy deletion as copyvio unless there's some other copyvio visible elsewhere. I won't remove the tag since I do have a COI here with the student, but I will say that this isn't the type of things that would be considered a copyright violation. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've removed the list of coverage for the time being and moved it to the article's talk page so they can be verified. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I've also fixed the title since it was bugging me. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched my vote to keep based on this solid work by ReaderofthePack. Theredproject (talk) 02:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Why are there two articles now, one at Cooper Giloth and one at Copper Giloth? I see that Talk:Cooper Giloth redirects to Talk:Copper Giloth, as it should. Was the article redirect suppressed because of this AfD? (Otherwise, I would have changed it myself.) NotARabbit (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ReaderofthePack moved the article to the correct title but then copy-pasted all the old content back to the old title. Regardless of outcome we should probably get rid of the incorrect title once the AfD closes. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry - that was my mistake. I think I had an old version of the page up and ended up editing that instead. It's since been fixed. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep GNG is met by the many book mentions that are non-trivial.104.163.159.237 (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

nominator's rationale Fails WP:GNG. The game was a upcoming game, but the page was only support by two primary source which is the digital store page (that have a low entrance fee for listing) and another source is kickstarter. Matthew_hk tc 12:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Also read the first nomination. The first PC Gamer article was only a paraphrase of the kickstarter campaign, not a non-routine (i.e. no in-depth coverage), the second article was certainly routine coverage. For other source that was listed in the first nomination, the original Gamepro (US) was listed as Wikipedia:VG/RS, but not sure about German edition. Haven't read the French Jeuxvideo.com article mentioned in the first nomination to comment the article was a non-routine non-press release RS or not. Matthew_hk tc 13:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk tc 12:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• And there is a draft that located in Draft:Prehistoric Kingdom. Matthew_hk tc 15:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Ping @Ansh666: who declined PROD and speedy G4 with the following reason "a half-sentence stub was deleted via AfD before. please use AfD again". Matthew_hk tc 12:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  He is, unfortunately, correct to decline both. --Izno (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That said, if the creator continues to recreate the material, it should either be SALTed or its creator blocked (or at least strongly warned) for disruptiveness. --Izno (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly there was a PR team, or some die-hard fans of an upcoming game. The draft was created by SPA @Calicojackosaur69:, while the article was created twice by @Bubblesorg:, which had a history of defying afd (see Australian Spinosaurid and User talk:Bubblesorg#Australian Spinosaurid). Matthew_hk tc 15:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This was just deleted. Why are we going through this again? Natureium (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a relevant improvement over the previous incumbent; flimsy content, bad sourcing, crystalballing. Editor does not seem to be able to grasp what makes an article worth creating or keeping (Tursiops osennae,Idiorophus,...) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would endorse WP:SALT the article titles Prehistoric kingdom and Prehistoric Kingdom if we had a consensus to delete. The creator had messaged me for deletion (Special:Diff/839149607) as well as his message in the talk page of the article (Special:Diff/839149389), indicated that he may had problem of ownership of article. Matthew_hk tc 17:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Should have been CSD. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG. Septrillion (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above delete comments. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Run of the mill article with nothing to support notability. Galatz^Talk 11:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz^Talk 14:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hmm, this one is tough, as she may well be notable. Sadly, this draft makes no evidence of this. However, if she has indeed been signed, she will be notable soon enough. So, no prejudice of recreation. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep - Hmm, this one is tough, as she already always be notable. Happily, this draft makes evidence of this. However, if she has indeed been signed, she will be notable soon enough. So, yes prejudice of recreation. FaZeCastorm^{(talk • contribs)} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.251.23.32 (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC) — 95.251.23.32 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I struck these comments as the user has been blocked due to these comments along with other actions. - Galatz^Talk 13:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. Septrillion (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Previously deleted by PROD, re-created by same author. Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (never played in a fully-professional league). GiantSnowman 10:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I hardly think a 15 year old kid passes GNG or NFooty. Govvy (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, WP:NSPORTS - "This page in a nutshell: An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition...", if Liga MX Femenil is indeed "the highest division of women's football in Mexico.", is it not a "major" competition? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NFOOTBALL requires "fully-professional" - this is not. GiantSnowman 08:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• agree, but wp:nsport does not ie. "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article.." Coolabahapple (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• NFOOTBALL is a more specific guide than NSPORT - and the other alternative is meeting GNG, which this does not do either. On what grounds would you consider this topic to be notable? GiantSnowman 14:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• i dont, hence the "comment" not "keep", thanks for clarifying things. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In any case, the article says she hasn't actually played a game in the league, so it's irrelevant whether doing so would make her notable. As I've explained on other similar AfD's, I think it would, but in this case, that's irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Has not actually played in the Liga MX Feminil, so whether doing so would make her notable is a moot point. Smartyllama (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K-IV water project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing signifies its encyclopedia value. appear some kind of advertisement to me. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. WP:NOTFUTURE applies here. Saqib (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll give it a weak keep, as it has sources for notability. ARY [10], Tribune [11], [12], DAWN [13].  M A A Z   T A L K  17:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a case of WP:N. I said the article has no encyclopedia value. --Saqib (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Any particular reason under WP:NOT for it not belonging in the encyclopedia? A major water project doesn't seem to have any difficulty under those grounds. There clearly is some degree of advertising but not sufficient to make it a dedicated advert. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - in the sense of "don't delete". Both this article, and the proposed merge target Business travel are flawed pieces that could certainly benefit from attention in the form of both writing and sourcing - but there's certainly no consensus to delete this article. Either both articles can be usefully improved to cover the distinct topics, or a combined article could be produced with this becoming a merged redirect - but as far as AfD is concerned, there is clearly not a consensus that deletion is the correct path here. ~ mazca ^talk 22:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

seems to be a WP:NEOLOGISM SeraphWiki (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Albeit a relatively new term, it has use in a variety of reliable sources in news [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19], corporate websites [20] [21] and even some hits in scholarly articles about the term itself and its definitions and characteristics per G scholar search. I don't think the Wikipedia article is an example of NEOLOGISM: it has growing usage already -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Business travel — this article is a stub, its not like merging will overburden the main article. The term may have usage but NEOLOGISM, if you follow it links to WP:NOTDICTIONARY — there's no need for a stand alone article about a recent slang word for "sightseeing while on a business trip" SeraphWiki (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Business travel is astonishingly bad as an article. The "Bleisure" article is largely promotional. A merge would have to be very selective. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The term certainly has sufficient usage, some given by Whats new? (whose oppose I assume means keep, here) but there's plenty more with some minimal searching - this lets it avoid WP:NEOLOGISM. Next up is WP:NOTDICTIONARY - there is plenty of content that covers non-dictionary areas, the article is far beyond (scope-wise, at least) a dictionary, so I feel it avoids that. Next up is the blended bit of WP:PROMO and the merge suggestion. The article certainly is promotional, but it clearly isn't purely promo, and NPOV issues are supposed to be dealt with by editing, not deletion. If we had some excellent business travel article then I might be in two minds about merging, but doing it here seems to help no-one. Hence, keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:04, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Vocational Agricultural School of Bevalala (edit | 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 The Banner talk 09:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]