Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 23

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Lax (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 to pass GNG. Zigzig20s (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A quick check of Google News finds many RS since 2011. However, the article needs to be completely rewritten in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. Yoninah (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Based on searching news archives [1], there appears to be substantial material about him sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Current news articles show nothing, but notability is not temporary. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:56, 27 January 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  09:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Narodil se Kristus pán (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)

• Duplicate article; initially a redirect: Article already exists at Freu dich, Erd und Sternenzelt, and it should be merged into it. "Narodil se Kristus pán" was initially a redirect created by Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) that went to "Freu dich, Erd und Sternenzelt."

.....which should be made in opposite way Heptapolein (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Other article is featured: The article Freu dich, Erd und Sternenzelt is on the Main Page today, in the Did you know... section.

.....that article is about the copy (version) of original song.Heptapolein (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• User acted unilaterally & with possible motive: Narodil se Kristus pán was expanded from a redirect with nationalistic intent by Heptapolein (talk · contribs) ("it is originally Czech song, thus, it cannot be redirected to German copy", from the edit summary on the page which expanded the article) after the first one, with no consensus(WP:CONSENSUS) from anyone else.

....interesting, that the creator of German article agreed with it, because she realizes German version arose from original Czech song. It is logical, that original version should be preffered Heptapolein (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Unnecessary: There is only one article that links to it, mainly due to it's initial function as a redirect.

I propose to delete the article per above. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 23:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three articles link to it, and they mean the Czech, not the German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a different article, about a different thing. Write an attribution on the talk page, and remove some duplication from the German. We have Puer natus est nobis and - derived from it - Lobt Gott, ihr Christen alle gleich, and hopefully you won't suggest to merge the Latin to the German. - Btw, "unnecessary" is no argument. All we do is voluntary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

.....Thank you for your objective and impartial stance, I appreciate your gesture. Greetings from Czechia Heptapolein (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (of course) - it is originally Czech carol and its German version is an adjusted copy. I really do not understand the proposal for deletion. On the contrary, the German duplication should be mentioned as an version of original song. The text of the article speaks clearly about the origin of the song. To call my article "nationalistic" is wrong, because "suum cuique" (Cicero) should be a basic rule. To prefer cover version would be really absurd praecedens. Heptapolein (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article about the original Czech carol should be kept. It makes sense.Geog25 (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article should be kept in my opinion, it is a Czech Carol. Helveticus96 (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Why should we keep an article about the derived German version Freu dich, Erd und Sternenzelt and forget about the Czech original? It's absurd. I can't see any nationalistic or false claims in Heptapolein's article, which could be potential arguments for a deletion. Oasis98 (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It makes more sense to keep the original as the main article rather than the cover. I could imagine this article with the added content from the German one and add a redirect from the German name here. In other words, get the German content here, add a redirect and delete the German article. It may sound nationalist but I'd still prefer this solution even if both versions were from the same country or the other way around. Or, we could just keep both versions since the German is better known and they don't conflict each other, therefore I see no other problem than redundancy, which isn't harmful. Vít Matějíček (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is not even much redundancy left. Two articles on different subjects, in different categories. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- If it is true that it has the oldest music manuscript, it is surely notable, though I am dubious about this. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 26 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor League Basketball Association (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 search for this league turns up only its own primary webpage. There are no news sources that meet WP:GNG. Possibly WP:TOOSOON, but the only independent source reporting on it is a guy who tracks these non-news covered leagues. Recreate if they make an actual newspaper somewhere. I recommended a draft space article first until it meets WP:GNG and it was at Draft:Minor League Basketball Association, but it was recreated (I am not against it going back into draft status or a user space). I prodded and it was de-prodded without improvement or reason given. This league currently has less actual coverage from news sources than the recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Arena League (which I know is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but it a similar comparison). Yosemiter (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete League has no literal schedule and for a reason that is plain indecipherable, doesn't play with the NBA season (the entire point of a minor league is to play in the major league season so players move up). Basically seems like yet another place for teams that don't want be associated with/pay the dues for the current mess that is the American Basketball Association to play amateur basketball (which is what the Minden Knights Facebook calls it), so this isn't even a minor league. Nate • (chatter) 02:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH with lack of significant coverage from multiple independent sources. Perhaps it is just WP:TOOSOON if the league finally takes off at some point.—Bagumba (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Garavi Gujarat (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. Article cites no sources and I can't find any reliable sources covering the paper myself (though I admittedly have no way to search for Gujarati-language sources). This official link says they have >100k readership, but I can find no secondary/tertiary sources to indicate that that might be true. Their social media numbers cast that somewhat into doubt: 4.8k Facebook likes, 19 Twitter followers, and 100-500 Android app installs. Having little social media following doesn't prove that they aren't notable, of course; I'm just grasping at straws because I really can't find much info about this newspaper whatsoever. IagoQnsi (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: only about a handful of independent reliable hits on Google search; rest are mirror sites and wikis. No bylines, no way to independently verify circulation, ... Quis separabit? 18:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I didn't realize the old revision was pretty decent. I support keeping with the revert, so I'll go ahead and close this. (non-admin closure) IagoQnsi (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhir M. Parikh (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)

As it stands, this article is just a giant promotional piece/advertisement/resume for Sudhir M. Parikh. At the very least, it should be deleted if no one is willing to completely rewrite. That said, I also question whether Parikh meets the notability standards. His main claims to fame are his awards: Ellis Island Medal of Honor, Pravasi Bharatiya Samman, and Padma Shri. These all seem to be relatively minor awards, not worthy of notability on their own. The Ellis Island Medal of Honor is given to ~100 people per year and seems to be only marginally notable. The Pravasi Bharatiya Samman doesn't seem to have much significant coverage and doesn't seem very notable. The Padma Shri is the 4th highest Indian civilian award; I can't find a policy for non-military government awards, but for military awards, the policy is that only the 1st highest award is good enough to merit notability. Besides the awards, most coverage of Parikh seems to be press release-type articles or trivial mentions. IagoQnsi (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a mess, I admit. However, notability is clearly established by the award , Padma Shri, the fourth highest Indian civilian awards. Not all government awards can be compared, but considering the fact that only 2840 people from a population of 1.3 billion have been awarded Padma Shri since its inception in 1954, makes it a major award. Suggest we wait for other's comments, too and if agreed, will revert the article to this level. --jojo@nthony (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Agree with jojo@nthony. Award of PadmaSri will pass WP:GNG. The edits on the article by RamasamyIndia which is a SPA completely messed up a fairly well written page with blatant advertizing. Should be reverted to the version as suggested. Hagennos (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the present revert, the article is keepable and meets notability as well as NPOV criteria.--jojo@nthony (talk) 06:27, 26 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie May (geneticist) (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. Natureium (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Over a dozen legit references. --В²C ☎ 22:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are things that he published. Scientists can have dozen of publications and still not be notable, even if the research itself is. Natureium (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • We differ in opinion about. I think publishing notable research makes the scientist notable, period. --В²C ☎ 00:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment According to SCOPUS his most cited papers have 114, 108, and 99 citations respectively in the ~18 years since they were published. After that it kinda tails off. Whether that means he meets WP:NACADEMIC criterion #1 or not is unclear to me.Ajpolino (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete His body of scientific work is not large enough and heavily cited enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per criteria 1 and 2. For 2, he was inducted into the American Fisheries Society's Genetics Section Hall of Excellence in 2015 (after the article was created it seems). The less significant awards for specific academic papers mentioned in the article also contribute to satisfying the criterion. For 1, his induction bio describes his "important contributions" to fish genetics in detail, using the words pioneered, foundation, and one of the earliest to describe the first few points. Though not directly satisfying criteria (as they're affiliated with universities), he was the director of two research centers dealing with genetics (UC Davis bio) and also his expertise is supported by his authorship of a very specific chapter in a 2003 fisheries textbook. He's listed as the primary author of a chapter in a very specific 1990 text also.

He may also satisfy criterion 7, but it's difficult to find sources that discuss his contribution to fish genetics in the context of fisheries management. His bio on UC Davis' site says that the laboratory he directed "focuses primarily on providing genetics data and expertise to state, federal, and tribal resource management agencies in their efforts to protect and conserve threatened and endangered fish species." The induction bio states "Much of his research has had direct management implications and there is an extensive list of federal, state, and tribal stakeholders that have benefited from his expertise." The current references in the article and its content may not indicate notability, but that doesn't make him not notable. Rhinopias (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I basically agree with Rhinopias I think that this subject meets the WP:NACADEMIC guideline requirements. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 15:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toomas Kivisild (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. Natureium (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:PROF#C1 with a SCOPUS h-index of 53 for 143 publications [2], and 28 publications with over 200 citations each on Google Scholar. XOR'easter (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice and all, but are there any sources about him aside from those published by his own university? If there's no information available, you can't write an article. Natureium (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that's what WP:PROF#C1 means? Wqwt (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Most of his publications have group author lists (not unusual in this area of science), but he has several first-author papers having >300 citations each. This is a conclusive pass of PROF c1. Regarding sources about him, the published papers are RS and give enough information for a short article (institutions, research area, etc). This is the case with numerous existing WP science BLPs. Agricola44 (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PROF#C1 and the highly cited first-author publications identified above. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- meets WP:PROF & "coauthored the second edition of the textbook Human Evolutionary Genetics". Sufficient for a stub-class article. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis of impact factor per WP:PROF, however, article needs improvement, specifically removal of external links in body. Chetsford (talk) 17:52, 28 January 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. If anyone would like a copy of the text to consider merging into Longwood Gardens, please just let me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Armstrong (geneticist) (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 couldn't find any indication of notability online. Natureium (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Natureium (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find citations in GS that would support WP:Prof. Would change vote on advice. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete I can't find sources to indicate the topic meets WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Ajpolino (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article isn't really about the person, but about a single project. If it belongs anywhere, it's in a section of Longwood Gardens. XOR'easter (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:24, 24 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Engo (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)

None of the information in this article can be found in any reliable source. Subject is not notable. samrolken (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:32, 16 January 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. I doubt this is going to be a satisfying close for anybody, but I don't see any consensus here. The problem is, NC defaults to keep, which is clearly what almost everybody wants to avoid. So, my recommendation is to just be WP:BOLD, and go ahead and perform the merge anyway. If you do go ahead and do that, I suggest re-reading this AfD to see what kind of cleanup you'll want to do as you perform the merge. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of comic book drugs (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 filed a merger proposal about 25 days ago. Nobody responded. I'd like to throw out the following reasons for deletion:

• It is an unnecessary content fork of List of fictional medicines and drugs. (the original rationale for the merger)
• There is no evidence of WP:LISTN. Most of the Marvel/DC drugs are relatively minor and non-notable.
• All of the sources are unreliable or primary.
• The article fails WP:INUNIVERSE.
• Not all entries are fictional (e.g. U-235 pills; Red, White, and Blue placebo pills), and many are not even drugs (e.g. Bio-restorative formula, Burnt Sienna). LaundryPizza03 (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I'll support a merge as the article is an unneeded content fork. We should also cut out a lot of the WP:OR as well. Ajf773 (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Listcruft with nothing to merge, as the sources are all primary, if there are any. The parent article is also primarily listcruft, save for a few ones with articles._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Poorly sourced listcruft. There's no potential merge target, as no article would be improved by including any of this excessive cruft. Reyk _YO! 06:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Representation of drugs in comics is a valid topic worthy of coverage. It's quite strange that there aren't any articles on representation of drugs in art seeing how common a theme they are. SFB 23:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Let this page stay. It is the page for every comic book drug as most of the redirects are listed here. If this page is deleted, the pages for some of those drugs are going to have to be recreated. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If those articles redirect to here and this article ends up being deleted then the subject of those articles are probably not notable. Ajf773 (talk) 06:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The vast majority of this list is pure WP:CRUFT. Very few of the entries here are sourced at all, and most of the ones that are, are just either using the comics themselves as the sources, or fansites, neither of which are reliable, secondary sources. I was going to suggest that very selective merge might be performed on the one or two entries here that look like they might have an actual reliable source, but I'm not positive there is a single entry here that meets that criteria. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:28, 30 January 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. J04n(talk page) 18:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saara Lamberg (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)

Last 2 Afds were no consensus. fails WP:NACTOR. all her roles and awards are minor. Yes she did appear in the notable Underbelly series but it was a very minor role. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- as per nom. Hard to establish notability when your most notable role was a minor character in a made-for-tv movie.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:FILMMAKER as well with only one minor production and some shorts. Manelolo (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, most of the recent expansions are about the minor production, not the director itself. Added tags appropriately. Manelolo (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Please keep this page, much more detail and citations have been added recently. DO NOT DELETE "Saara Lamberg" from Wikipedia, many more details and links have been added recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melbourneyogateacher (talk • contribs) 17:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Melbourneyogateacher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep: considerably expanded since nomination, and since previous no consensus AfDs: appears notable. PamD 00:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, how does expansion of an article or lack of previous consensus create notability? Manelolo (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets GNG. In print she's been covered in a dozen different Leader articles specifically about her, (including 1, 2, 3, 4), and also in four mX articles since 2011. She's also covered here in an SBS interview, and in independent niche coverage here and here. Kb.au (talk) 22:57, 10 January 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 Climbing. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Types of climbing (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)

Meandering essay. No sources, totally OR, no focus. Refs are so incomplete that they might as well not exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it's meandering and poorly sourced. I don't think it has to be deleted though; it can be edited for readability and sourced with a couple of beginning climbing guides / links. Arcataroger (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Climbing. This is pretty much covered there already, and the term might be used as a legitimate search. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Climbing. per Kingofaces43 --Bduke (Discussion) 00:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Climbing. I've already ensured that key links missing in Climbing are inserted from this article. As a climber myself, I don't see much value in keeping this duplicate page, especially as we also have Index of climbing topics. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Mduvekot (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fluxus at Rutgers University (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 intersection of topics, most of the subject matter is incidental Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep this is a pretty key part of the history of Fluxus. The article just has almost no citations, and should be better cited. I just dropped two museum shows, and one NYT article, which should pretty clearly establish notability. Those were just the first three results in google.... so there's a lot more there. --Theredproject (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. I randomly picked three claims in the article, and was able to add a reliable source for each, with ease. Lots of sources out there. 198.58.161.137 (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Highly notable art movement.Djflem (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources already in the article (e.g. from The New York Times about Fluxus in New Brunswick) and other sources in articles and books available online, which are in depth and on topic, all demonstrate that this is indeed a notable intersection. I had no trouble finding the sources using a tool called "Google" and offer my thanks to Theredproject and our IP editor who were able to find these sources and add them to the article. I can't figure out why we allow nominators to get away with failing to search for sources, improve articles as an alternative to deletion and meet the obligations of WP:BEFORE, a problem that infects AfD. Alansohn (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was speedy delete. per GSD G4 RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cam Howe (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)

local community activist--references are not substantially about him, but about project he is interested in, and merely mentioning him. DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

As previously stated to DDG, the subject is no different to Daniel Bowen, who is also a frequent Australian media commentator. References include Australian Parliament, national TV coverage, national print coverage and local print coverage. The subject also writes for newspapers within the geographical area in which he resides and represents.

As per Wikipedia: Notability - "if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"

There is no basis to the claims asserted by DDG 1subwoofer (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – A low profile individual quoted in a handful of articles about a suburb. No significant coverage of the subject; only incidental mentions. Other stuff exists isn't a strong argument for keep because this AfD isn't on Daniel Bowen, and there are nonetheless considerable differences between Bowen and Howe, such as Bowen being the former head and current spokesperson of the PTUA which the Carrum and Patterson Lakes Forum doesn't compare to. Kb.au (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note – I've CSDed the article because it is a recreation of the old Cameron Howe article, which was deleted after an AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cameron Howe). Kb.au (talk) 08:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete and salt. Repeatedly reposting after a very recent afd. Let's put an end to this now. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:30, 24 January 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) 01:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Politz (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he is signed to New York Red Bulls. Since he has yet to make his debut for them, this does not satisfy WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:24, 24 January 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) 13:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:NCOLLATH due to national recognition such as CLASS All-American awards and USC All-American honors that meet and have generated non-routine coverage, which therefore meets WP:GNG. Quidster4040 (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. I'm also not convinced WP:NCOLLATH is really relevant to footballers – in no other countries are players deemed notable based on their youth career. Number 57 11:52, 28 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nirupama Pathak death case (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)

Not clear why this is notable; many murders are reported in reliable sources, but not every one is worthy of an article here. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 19:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Why did this receive WP:SIGCOV? Maybe the grisly details (the mother being allegedly involved, being locked up in the house and communicating prior to being killed), family, being a journalist, and just randomness. However this has received international coverage (e.g. in NYT - [3], and editorial [4] and newsblog [5]), has on-going coverage (e.g. in 2014 - [6]) and quite a few book mentions - e.g. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11], or this Preeshl, Artemis. "Media as Mediator: Intertextual Narrative in Digital and Performative Presentation." Cross-Cultural Communication 10.1 (2014): 1.. Meets WP:NCRIME and GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets WP:NCRIME and GNG indeed. the above mentioned references and book mentions are also quite telling.BabbaQ (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment ~ that's fine, then; i still don't see it meeting these policies, especially as it stands: Three sections, each one paragraph, two of them a single sentence, the third but two. There is nothing in it like this which differentiates this particular suicide or murder from others which we deem do not merit an article. If you guys think there is an article here, can you help produce it, please? Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 16:16, 30 January 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) 01:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Albion Capital Group (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)

Corporate spam. Before it was stubbified, just a collection of promotional links about the company, and probably subject to paid edits. No indication the subject meets WP:NCORP. – Joe (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only coverage that I could find were run-of-the-mill business announcements, generated by press releases. This does not seem to be a notable company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - fails gng Wolfson5 (talk) 20:48, 30 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Lopez (fighter) (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)

Fighter has not competed in Top tier event. Last fight was 4 years ago, unlikely to meet WP:NMMA in near future. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 18:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator.PRehse (talk) 09:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He lost his only top tier MMA fight at Dream 14, so he fails to meet WP:NMMA. He also lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn - Not sure why but at the time of searching I'd only got one result which was a trivial mention ?, No idea but anyway meets GNG so withdrawn (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Tatiana von Fürstenberg (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 american rock singer and filmmaker, Her parents (Diane von Fürstenberg & Egon von Fürstenberg) both have articles so could be merged into one of those, Fails FILMMAKER as well as GNG –Davey2010^Talk 18:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Improve subject is notable but this article lacks quality coverage. Needs major improvement. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes W:GNG [12][13][14][15]. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep - I originally closed this as Redirect however on a technicality that wasn't me withdrawing so as such I've reclosed this as Speedy Keep and then the redirect isn't a part of this discussion. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC) (original close)[reply]

Wey Valley Radio (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 radio station, Fails RADIO as well as GNG –Davey2010^Talk 18:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Delta FM, as I originally created it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Joan Ross (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)

Unref blp; does not appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:PROF#C6 as past president of two notable medical societies. XOR'easter (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. I can find only 28 citations to her published work on GS, which would scarcely make her world class. Can anybody help? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Probably Keep. She's notable for her leadership of 2 scientific societies, but the article is highly promotional, and needs a lot of rewriting. Natureium (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The promotional prose turned out to be copyvios, so it had to go quickly. XOR'easter (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Likely keep. I'm not sure where Google Scholar is getting confused for Xxanthippe, but PubMed has no trouble returning a couple hundred hits for HJ Ross. (A handful of them are for a different H.J. Ross at the Mayo Clinic, but most of them seem to be the right Ross. Maybe Google Scholar is getting mixed up because Ross has used different academic/institutional affiliations for different publications, and it's causing trouble with her indexing.)
  The tone and content of the article when nominated for deletion were quite problematic, being both far too laudatory and having the feel of a cut-and-paste job. It looks like XOR'easter has cleaned up the copyvios and thinned out the hagiography. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for this help but PubMed seems to list only the papers she has her name on as author, not the citations to the papers by others which are what counts for WP:Prof as just publishing stuff contributes nothing to notability. Searching for "H J Ross" on GS does much better with an h-index of around 50 which is fine for a high-cited field (but that may include others of the same name). I wish people who write these vapid BLPs of academics would take the trouble to make it easy to find citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Her SCOPUS h-index is 40 [16]. XOR'easter (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this important information. For me this makes it a Keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep -- meets WP:PROF and appears to be influential in her field. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now that most of the promotion and copyvio has been removed (thanks XOR'easter). There's still too much "she likes long walks along the beach" personal-ad stuff here for my taste but it's a lot better than it was, and no longer at a level where TNT might be needed. She appears to pass both WP:PROF#C1 and #C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination This seems to have been my error. Boleyn (talk) 06:28, 24 January 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) 01:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Tabar (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 has been cobbled together from sources that are either not reliable, not independent or are not about the subject. This article fails Wikipedia:BASIC, and the subject is not notable.

• [17] is a dead link
• [18] has a one-line quote from the subject
• https://article.wn.com/view/WNATca081dc8f5d90776aba7a664552561ad/ is a summary of a TV-appearance by the subject where he discussed his own company.
• [19] is the subject's own website
• [20] is an affiliated company's website, not an independent source
• [21] is a press release
• [22] is the subject discussing hedge fund launch strategies
• [23] is a routine announcement of a career change
• [24] cites the subject, but does not discuss him
• [25] is a routine announcement of a career change
• [26] is a blog, not a reliable source
• [27] is a routine announcement of a career change
• [28] was written by the subject
• [29] is a contributor bio, not independent reporting
• [30] is a press release Mduvekot (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. Refbombing thirteen references at the end of a sentence in the lead does not advance WP:notability. According to the ABA there are 1.1 million licensed attorneys in the United States alone so nothing "special" about this person to warrant an article. Otr500 (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another overly promotional article on a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 30 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paddles (cat) (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 need for this WP:NOTNEWS article, has not been edited in a month, will become irrelevant soon, and is stub. groig (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep nothing has changed. Just because an article hasn't been edited, is not relevant to you and is a stub, none are reasons for deletion. Suggest speedy close. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notability doesn't expire with time. The cat received media attention, arguably more than other 'first pets', e.g. Larry (cat), Bo (dog). --Hazhk (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep coverages seems sufficient for GNG. Artw (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant coverage before its death had established general notability. Schwede66 16:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Prior to her death, Paddles had international media attention including Vanity Fair, BBC, India, Singapore and Malaysia. Easily passes WP:SIGCOV. WWGB (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Covered by WP:RS. Lack of edits over a set period of time is irrelevant. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for various reasons. (1) The fact the article has not been edited in a month is irrelevant. (2) The fact the article is a stub is irrelevant. (3) I'm not sure what the nominator means by "will become irrelevant soon". If this means that dead people and animals are irrelevant, then presumably this means we should also delete the many thousands of other Wikipedia articles about dead people and dead animals. (4) Paddles, like the pets of many other politicians, meets the general notability guideline, namely that she had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I also note that this coverage occurred on multiple occasions before her death. (5) Claims by editors that she is only known for her death are simply false. Disclosure: I created the Paddles article. Chrisclear (talk) 07:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Though not contained in this article, BEFORE shows that coverage was spread over a period of time and not limited to the month of its death. Therefore, it seems reasonable that this passes GNG and should be kept in the same way we have Socks, etc. Chetsford (talk) 17:54, 28 January 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Stojanović (actor) (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)

Queried speedy delete (for spam and copyvio) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is very notable subject, i will fix article a bit, this person is president of both World Mime Organisation and National Curling Association of Serbia, as well as quite notable actor with over 40 titles as actor, writer and director. It looks like only awards section is copyvio, but that must in some point be similar. I will fix it. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 16:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 17:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 17:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 17:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 17:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Award section removed. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 17:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good job. I will add awards in a proper way, without Ccopyvio here. Well, than this AfD should be stopped, so we can expand and work on article. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 01:05, 24 January 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) 01:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chad McNamara (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)

Lisa J. Lennox (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)

Jonathan Wexler (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:BLPs of three actors who have performed together as the cast of a children's show, not referenced to any reliable source coverage about them for the purposes of establishing that they pass WP:NACTOR for anything. As always, the notability test for an actor is not "has had roles", but "has received significant and substantial media coverage for the having of roles". But two of these three are referenced only to their IMDb profiles and the show's self-published website about itself, and the only one (Lisa Lennox) that actually cites any reliable media sourcing at all cites a single source which (1) fails to verify the claim that the footnote is actually sitting on, and (2) mentions her only in the caption to the photograph on an article that isn't otherwise about her at all, so simply moving the footnote somewhere else to eliminate problem #1 isn't the key to salvation. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- they have to be the subject of reliable source coverage for a Wikipedia article to become earned, but none of these three meets that condition. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all No reliable sources support the notability of these individuals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all- Nothing to establish notability. And if I was any one of these people I'd want the article deleted too. This must be the most embarrassing acting role ever.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:55, 29 January 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) 01:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jawwad Farid (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 in-depth coverage in RS. most of the cited sources are either blogs, non-indepedent of the subject or press releases. The user who created the BLP has been blocked for socking. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scheheryar.. --Saqib (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 17:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 17:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 17:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete does not pass WP:GNG + created by a blocked user.  samee  ^talk 13:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it per WP:GNG. G5 not applies. Störm (talk) 15:51, 26 January 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rae Valentine (Singer) (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:TOOSOON. Non-notable singer, fails WP:MBIO and WP:GNG. Existing sources are questionable as most of them appear to have the same content. There's COI also as the creator appears to be the article topic. — Zawl 16:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable singer and fails WP:GNG. Article has been created by a WP:SPA with a COI. Could also be a candidate for Speedy as the page was moved from draft space to Main when declined and due to WP:PROMO. I am also creating a WP:CSD Hagennos (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not satisfy musical notability or general notability, and is an autobiography. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Does not meet WP:GNG and is clearly a piece of self promotion. MarnetteD|Talk 04:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nom, falling far short of WP:MUSIC. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and self promo. MT Train^Discuss 08:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Apart from not meeting WP:GNG, I do not like the fact that this article was published by its CoI creator after being turned down at AfC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:02, 26 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

URF Asian Records (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)

Not finding significant external coverage to assert notability. Also, appears to have been created by a sockpuppet, so could have originally qualified for WP:G5. Note the illustrator/cover artist/CEO article Suvodeep Chatterjee is salted, but was recreated yesterday under a different title by the same user who created this one. Home Lander (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:13, 23 January 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) 01:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Abdulaziz Alhaji (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 am unable to find independent reliable sources that significantly discuss this individual per WP:GNG. Subject does not meet criteria of WP:NACADEMIC. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 15:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing indicates his academic work rises to the level to make him a notable academic. Clearly his work has not pushed him over the general notability guidelines threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mostly sourced by opportunities to buy his books. This ref indicates the publisher is Lighthouse Books for Translation and Publishing, another of Steven2020Markus2582's fixations. Looks like a COI account for the publisher to me, and this article like spam. Cabayi (talk) 15:11, 24 January 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) 01:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Kaanth (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 actor - does not met WP:NACTOR with no major appearances - suspect self promotion PRehse (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Having watched the article's originator flail around for two days trying to address the notability issue with the weakest of cast-list-type mentions, I am reasonably sure that there are no suitable sources if even they can't produce them. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable actor fails WP:NACTOR Hagennos (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non notable actor. The article has been created by a SPA user and appear to have close connection with the subject which they should disclose. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:51, 26 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fito Kahn (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 can find virtually no sourcing on this person. Would redirect to the band, but the band is also non-notable. Fails WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Hirsch (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 is a biography of a person who has spent about twenty years as a corporate executive with media companies. I see no evidence that the subject meets any of the criteria set forth in WP:ANYBIO. An on-line search shows several instances where the subject acts as a company spokesperson and several more routine announcements re: his hiring and promotions. But nothing in the way of substantive coverage of the subject himself. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable low level executive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- as per nom, he's just not notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per the new rules, as a c-suite executive of one of the largest cable companies, he seems notable enough to warrant a page. He has also won numerous awards, from FORBES, NCTA, and others. 99Hallway (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shit or get off the pot (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)

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

Contested PROD. This has existed for years with only a single source, no indiciation this is a particularly notable English saying beyond a standard dictionary definition. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as just a dictionary of slang entry. Mangoe (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Mangoe. Non-notable phrase. Nothing online except slang dictionaries and idioms that I can see. As a common Englishman myself, can't say I've ever heard of this expressoin - not that that is at all relevant. Just sayin'. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Wikipedia is not a dictionary. CookieMonster755✉ 16:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The phrase has an association with Richard Nixon, who said it to Eisenhower during the 1952 campaign controversy that was ultimately resolved by the Checkers speech [31][32]. Our article about the Checkers speech includes the quote. but strangely it is not mentioned in the Wiktionary entry for the phrase [33]. There are a number of mentions of the phrase in linguistics contexts (see the results from the search string I added above) but I suspect these will not change the minds of those who prefer a more forceful application of WP:DICTDEF.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by RHaworth, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manor rama pictures (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)

There is some slight notability, but from the links I see they mostly look like PR ones. Also, out of 4 projects, two are in development. Looks like WP:TOSOON Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:19, 23 January 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) 01:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yacht Club Baku (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)

Mostly promotional with no clear support for notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are alternatives articles like Yacht-Club von Deutschland , Yacht Club Costa Smeralda--Nare 03 (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I do have my reservations about Yacht Club Costa Smeralda notability. As for Yacht-Club von Deutschland, there is a clear historical context and enough sources, supporting notability. Having articles about similar topics are not supporting arguments for notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as I too see no claim to notability in the mass of ad brochure copy. Mangoe (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as promotional. Really, this could have been deleted under WP:G11 or WP:A7. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 31 January 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. WP:SNOW applies. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lifespan Integration (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)

Doesn't seem to be a notable therapeutic method: most of what I could find are promotional sites or at best passing mentions. The article also reads in a somewhat promotional tone, and in any case the article seems to reek of woo. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteAlso having trouble finding any RS, a couple of "also therapy" articles but not a lot.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Slater. The article lead appears to be a direct re-write of http://lifespanintegration.com. While that's not plagiarism, it's suggestive of an article author with a COI of some sort. There seems to be little to no independent coverage of this method, and a good chunk of relevant Google Scholar hits are from that website, as well (with no citations, of course). The rest of the (very few) hits all seem to be unpublished pdfs, hosted on university websites. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per oh my god do I really have to give a justification again so much woo so much very much woo I can't take it any more. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 13:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment (and username) made me think of Wow, much fringe, very woo. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Delete. According to the author's talkpage, articles on the subject were rejected as drafts. That this was created anyway seems to me to be a problem with closing the loop on situations where AfC is doing a good job filtering problematic content. Of course, I cannot see the deleted content, but I am going to assume it is largely the same. If an admin wants to disabuse me of this prejudice, I am happy to listen. jps (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not notable. There is nothing on pubmed[34]. What is on google books is not sufficient. Looks like promotion. No disclosure by the involved editor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete yep, an advertisement. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is all promotional. Natureium (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:FRINGE - all promo sources, no WP:RS, nothing but promo sites and woo-waffle on Google. (love that term!) Nick Moyes (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Not sure if I should say this since I'm the nominator, but it seems pretty snowy here. Time to cut the article's lifespan? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:17, 24 January 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. What a mess. There may well be a notable article here but the potential for it to be a BLP nightmare appears immense. What is clear is that we can’t have edit warring over BLP type material and neither can we have a self-serving COI based article. Giving spas with no policy basis very littke weight, I’m going to delete this with the suggestion that someone ininvolved writes a draft using available sources to see if a BLP compliant article is possible. If so, bring the draft to DRV for review. 06:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noel N. Ashman (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)

There has been some edit-warring over whether it should contain sourced information about legal problems faced by the subject and his club. See this prior version for the "full" article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The prior deletion discussions were at WP:Articles for deletion/Noel Ashman, WP:Articles for deletion/Noel Ashman (2nd nomination), and WP:Articles for deletion/Noel Ashman (3rd nomination). NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A user with a clear agenda has been targeting this page. The Biography of Living Person guidelines state, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives".

Per those guidelines, language such as "Ashman’s latest club was fraught with difficulties from its very beginnings." or "“They owe everybody money and the neighbors and the police are tired of them,” claimed a nightlife insider." have no place in a Wiki article.

It is clear that the user, who has added such content multiple times, shows a one-sided negative bias. -- Co44ee (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just as Kevin Spacey's page makes reference to allegations against the artist, referenced facts regarding Mr. Ashman have been RE included on this page. There is no "tabloid" angle here, only referenced quotes from reliable publications, which have written about Mr. Ashman for decades. Ghostofchristmaspast (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)ghostofchristmaspast[reply]

• I agree with the user co44ee Clearly the user ghostsofchristmaspast has a personal vendetta about this subject(as the user name would suggest) wikipedia is not a place for personal issues. As far as notability the subject is the producer of two big films clinton road with ice t and wasted talent with many stars & is executive producer on the bruce willis movie reprisal & the gotti movie starring john travollta which has been getting extreme amounts of media attention. He also has owned some very high profile nightclubs studio 54, veruka, plumm and the leonora. All these clubs have gotten huge media attention and been hangouts for a-list celebrities so it seems very clear by any standard his notability is clearly worthy of this article as well as interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutienumber5 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN: Just as Kevin Spacey's Wikipedia page makes reference to allegations against the artist (these in addition to Mr. Spacey's gifts and notable achievements), referenced facts regarding Mr. Ashman have been RE included on this page. There is no "tabloid" angle here, only referenced quotes from reliable publications, which have written about Mr. Ashman for decades. These same publications have also been cited in numerous other Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, the above user’s objections are not to “allegations”, as in the case of someone such as Kevin Spacey, but rather to referenced facts and court documents concerning Mr. Ashman. Ghostofchristmaspast (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)ghostofchristmaspast — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostofchristmaspast (talk • contribs) 20:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To compare your bias edit to that of kevin spacey in beyond ridiculous. Mr spacey was accused of horrible deeds and actual crimes, by many notable high profile people and reported on in many mainstream media outlets, these allegations were deemed so credible that they caused his removal from a top tv show(house of cards) as well as many high profile films. In the case of mr ashman none of the high profile media outlets that have constantly covered him over the last 25 years, and are referenced on this page(the ny times, people magazine, variety etc) have covered these silly allegations. My read of your 'sources' which are mostly very obscure websites that are no longer even in existence, show common partner disagreements that happen all the time in business. It is also notable that after these allegation mr ashman remained owner of the business in question(plumm) for three more years clearly showing the validity of his accusers arguments. By your logic we should waste time on wikipedia discussing josh hartnett's traffic tickets or tracy morgans disagreements with his high school friends. You need to refer to wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia is not a place for airing out old grudges, if you are indeed an old associate of mr ashman's(which it is clear that you are) that holds a grudge you should seek relief in court or with your psychologist. user: Cutienumber5 (talk) 2:37, 25 january 2018(utc)

The referenced sources the above user refers to and appears dissatisfied with and considers "very obscure" or "no longer in existence" are as follows: The Daily News, The New York Post, The Village Voice and The New York Observer, which, in 2016 became Observer.com.Ghostofchristmaspast (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from nominator. @Co44ee, Ghostofchristmaspast, and Cutienumber5: I've moved your lengthy discussion to the article's Talk page (Talk:Noel N. Ashman), which is where it should have been from the start. This Articles for Deletion page is for discussing the merits of either keeping or deleting the article in its entirety. If this is your first "AfD discussion", you might want to take a look at WP:Articles for deletion#Contributing to AfD discussions. If any of you objects to my moving the discussion, feel free to restore it. Thank you for your cooperation. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Kill it. It's a vanity page. And if you google around on this guy, Ashman, you find some pretty unflattering stuff out there -- perhaps some user or editor with more free time than I should enter some of those unseemly details and their sources to create a more comprehensive profile of this individual. Wikipedia is for looking up figures such as Churchill, Jeanne d'Arc and my bandmates :) -- not selling tickets to something! EdZeppelin (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – The subject appears to be notable (notorious?), but the article seems to attract a vicious edit war about Ashman's legal problems. I have no idea how that can be prevented. A permanent page protection is not normally applied. Maybe the two editors involved could be issued with a topic ban? If that isn't feasible either, deleting and salting the article might be the only option. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious keep. I agree with user Michael Bednarek the subject is clearly notable by any standard. I actually live in chicago and do not spend much time in new york, but even i am familiar with him and many of his clubs veruka studio 54 and plum. I am also a big fan of his girlfriend paula devicq from her days on the tv shows party of five and rescue me. I did not even know he produced movies but i did see one of them "mind the gap" and it was excellent. I see on the page he also is a producer & writer of documentaries and even the new gotti film with john travolta which i am dying to see. timesup1000 talk 9:05, 26 January 2018 (utc)

• Definite keep. I agree Michael Bednarek and timesup. Although I am little old for the nightclub scene I am young enough to read the papers and I have seen that Ashman has owned several very famous night clubs, chaired some huge charity events including several for the Rainforest Action Network, and produced some fine movies, a few of which I have seen, and some of which I am looking forward to seeing —especially the Gotti film with John Travolta and the Reprisal with Bruce Willis. Also my company did a corporate party at the Plumm which was impressively elegant and I saw some of the normal crowd wander in late in the evening, including Denzel Washington and other familiar faces I probably should have been able to name. I am disturbed to see the vindictiveness of ghostofchristmaspast on Wikipedia.It is unseemly for someone to use Wikipedia to grind an axe from some sort of personal issue with the subject. Is it an unrequited lover? an actor who was rejected for a movie role? someone who couldn’t get into one of his clubs? or are we dealing with some sort of media stalker? I googled Ashman, and he has nearly 300,000 google hits. He has been in People, Variety, NY Times, Us Weekly, Wall Street Journal, Paper, Vogue, Vanity Fair, New York Magazine etc How can one argue he isn’t notable? He has been referred to in these publications as “Club king,” “Ringmaster”, “Mogul,” “One of the five most important people in New York” “Club mogul turned film mogul” what more does it take to be notable? Sorry for the length of this entry, but this got under my skin.-- catsanddrums talk 3:28, 26 January 2018(UTC)

• Noel Ashman warranting a Wikipedia page? There is no God. Every single one of Ashman's places was evicted from its location including the one that stands as his claim to fame: Veruka. I sat court-side for that little fiasco. Whether Ashman has been in business three months, a year or six, the business model remains the same: Don't pay the floor staff and just wait for them to quit and then replace them with others. Every time I read mention of Ashman in the newspaper it is for being evicted yet again and being sued by his investors. The last club he owned got padlocked by the city for operating as an illegal strip club. (That's what places do when they can't pay their water bill) Where are all these details?? Why are they conveniently left out of Ashman's profile? These incidents are all easily searchable and have been covered in depth by the media. I 100% guarantee that Ashman or an associate of his wrote the Wikipedia article on him and that every single one of these supporters is a friend or family member. Regine, Peter Gatien, Steve Rubell, Ian Schrager, Nur Kahn, Amy Sacco, Noah Tepperberg, Jason Strauss and Mark Packer -- these are the past and present players in the New New York City Nightlife scene -- not this self-promoting, broken down valise. Ashman is a total fraud. PS & FYI: those are all straight-to-video or straight-to-YouTube titles in Ashman's Producer roster. Thenightisyoung (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Mina Mary (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)* KEEP. I grew up in New York and spent time going to all the clubs of the mid 90's through 2010. I spent many a night surrounded by celebrities, pro-athletes and those like me that were enjoying the scene all over the city. I loved Noel Ashman's clubs and his parties, how could anyone question he was one of the originators and perfectors of the lounge/club experience with Veruka? As reading is a great hobby I was always amazed at the cross-section of people at his clubs, as they had been at Studio 54 in the day. I could not open a publication without mention of Veruka and Noel Ashman's many accomplishments at such a young age. I saw reference to his clubs in Cosmopolitan Magazine, People, The New York Post, The New York Daily News, US Magazine, everything this man did was written about, the people in his clubs were written about, the fact that Veruka was a favorite of the New York Yankees was a known fact. In a city that never sleeps the nightlife and the creators of that nightlife are a substantial part of the city we love and deserve recognition of what they have accomplished, the part they have played and the part they continue to play. Now I read about him creating, producing movies (I do read everything). He seems to be able to create successful entertainment and that is not in doubt. The fact that he has been successful seems to have brought haters. Don't late the haters win. I am honestly shocked and saddened that this is even being discussed.[User: Mina Mary] 9:57 28 January 2018[reply]

• Comment from nominator. Hello, folks. I see that, with the exception of User:Michael Bednarek, all of you are new to Wikipedia, with accounts that were all started earlier this month (and, for some of you, your edits here are your only edits to Wikipedia). I welcome all of you to Wikipedia. And if you haven't already done so, I encourage you to read WP:Articles for deletion#Contributing to AfD discussions.

  Although you are free to make any argument (for or against) that you believe will be helpful, there are two areas of discussion that will likely be found significant by the administrator who closes this discussion. These are:

1. This article was "salted" back in 2012, meaning that it should not have been re-created without going through the deletion-review process. The only reason the article was able to be re-created without going through that process was that the name of the article was changed to include the subject's middle initial. Is this enough to justify by-passing the usual system, especially given that the article doesn't use the middle initial and doesn't even tell us what it stands for? Some might find this to be a deceptive practice; others might say that the "ends justify the means" and that the article should be allowed to remain as a fait accompli. Your opinions on this will be helpful to the closing administrator.
2. Has the article demonstrated the existence of significant coverage of the subject by reliable sources? Of the nineteen references in the article, ten are to IMDB -- a site that is not considered reliable by Wikipedia (because it is user-generated) and would need to be removed even if the article is kept. The same concern applies to the whodatedwho.com reference. And having a LinkedIn page contributes nothing to encyclopedic notability. Of the seven other references, I see four that mention the subject only in passing and another (the Daily News) that provides local coverage of a local business dispute. That leaves us with just two references that might be providing significant coverage. But the 1999 article from the Times gives us little more than the subject talking about a professional baseball player. And being friends with a ballplayer isn't what it takes to get a Wikipedia article. That leaves us with the HuffingtonPost piece, which actually does go into the type of detail that one expects to see being used as a reference. But ..., that piece was not written by a member of the HuffPost's journalistic staff. Instead, it appears as a blog contributed by a person who describes herself as a "paranormal intuitive investigator". I don't find this person to be a reliable source, especially considering that her blog would have received little to no editorial oversight from the HuffingtonPost. I also find it of more than passing interest that the blog was updated at about the same time the Wikipedia article was re-created.

Your comments on these observations will be helpful to the closing administrator. NewYorkActuary (talk) added at 18:06, 28 January 2018‎

COMMENT TO NOMINATOR: Lo and behold - a voice of reason amidst all the clatter...Thenightisyoung (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some Noel Ashman facts and references worthy of a Wikipedia page:

Court records show the New York City Marshall’s office took possession of The Plumm on April 9, 2009 as a result of $113,727 in unpaid rent. Housing Court records show that even prior to winning an eviction, The Plumm’s landlord had filed suit against the club on six separate occasions. In 2005, when the club was known as NA, investors unsuccessfully attempted to oust Ashman as managing partner for overspending “approximately 163% over the amount budgeted in the business plan,” although the club was operating only three days a week, not seven, as originally planned, according to court papers.

Multiple employees of the Plumm stated that they were bilked by Ashman, whom they claimed, in addition to not paying their hourly wages, stole their tips.

In 2014, Ashman opened The Leonora in the Chelsea section of Manhattan with investors Michael Strahan, Simon Rex, and Damon Dash.

Eviction proceedings began against the Leonora three months after its opening. Not long after, the NYPD raided the Leonora, when they received a tip that it was being operated as an illegal adult cabaret. Multiple summonses were issued, putting the club’s liquor license in jeopardy.

“They owe everybody money and the neighbors and the police are tired of them,” claimed a nightlife insider. As of April 1, 2015 The Leonora had issued nearly 150 unredeemable checks to vendors and employees over a seven-month period. Ashman was soon squaring off with his partners and investors and resorted to installing an alarm system, which prohibited those same investors from entering the club during the daytime, in order to review the club’s financial records. Alleging that $89,000 in cash was unaccounted for, these investors drafted a legal letter to Ashman, demanding that he “produce a complete set of accounting records.”

On November 29, 2015, a stop-work order was served on the Leonora by the Workers Compensation Board, which cited the club with $18,000 in unpaid fines. The New York City Marshall’s office took possession of the Leonora on January 5, 2016.

During the period between Plumm and Leonora, Ashman attempted to operate a club known as The Elsinore. He appeared unable to get along with his partners even before the venue opened for business. The venture was short lived and The Elsinore shuttered prior to its official opening as a result of Ashman being locked out of the premises by his partners and investors, one of who claimed: “Mr. Ashman, outside of self-promoting himself did nothing,”

Ghostofchristmaspast (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghostofchristmaspast: When I made my nomination statement, I linked to what I called the "full" article. But when discussing the referencing, I neglected to check for the additional sources that appeared in that version. You have my apologies for the error and my thanks for correcting it.

These additional references all share something in common -- they are all New York papers providing local coverage of a local business dispute. How would you respond to anyone who argued that such local coverage does not demonstrate the notability required for a global encyclopedia? NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. While there is some debate on what belongs on the entry itself, I feel like there are more than enough citations and sources to satisfy the notability requirements. In addition to the stories listed above, the subject has been covered extensively by credible sources. I did some additional digging and found numerous offline articles that mention him including NY TIMES, NY POST PEOPLE, PAPER MAGAZINE, VANITY FAIR, NY MAGAZINE. Those are all prominent national magazines. They can be found here: http://www.noelashman.com/press.html Co44ee (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NY POST
Pay To Play - Inside New York's Most Exclusive Members Clubs https://nypost.com/2006/04/19/pay-to-play-inside-new-yorks-most-exclusive-members-clubs/
Trivial Pursuits: Our Beloved Yankees Have Their Share of Idiosyncracies https://nypost.com/2001/10/27/trivial-pursuits-our-beloved-yankees-have-their-share-of-idiosyncracies/
How Out Players Party
https://nypost.com/1999/10/14/how-out-players-party-or-not-they-are-foes-on-the-field-but-are-they-friends-at-the-bar-read-on/
Promotion Commotion: How to Get Paid to Party with Pals https://nypost.com/2001/11/01/promotion-commotion-how-to-get-paid-to-party-with-pals/

THE NY TIMES
A NIGHT OUT WITH: David Wells and Noel Ashman; Extra Innings Blowout http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/13/style/a-night-out-with-david-wells-and-noel-ashman-extra-innings-blowout.html

NY MAG
Ashman's New Credit
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/1131/
The Toughest Velvet Rope in Town
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/4319/

EATER NY
Noel Ashman Ready For Some More, But Will it Work? https://ny.eater.com/2009/12/11/6750475/noel-ashman-ready-for-some-more-but-will-it-work#comment-514793

GRUB STREET
Noel Ashman to Film Life Story, Open Clubs in NYC and A.C. http://www.grubstreet.com/2008/03/noel_ashman_to_film_life_story.html

NEWSDAY
Down days for NYC nightlife https://www.newsday.com/entertainment/down-days-for-nyc-nightlife-1.877234

• Delete a non-notable businesssman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Recreation of salted title. I have not dealt with recreated articles that were salted but there are issues and questions:

1. How can this article not be in violation of policy? A subversive act, or creation through lack of knowledge, the recreation by adding a middle initial or name is still the same article about the same person.
2. Why is this not a major concern? There is a process to create or recreate a salted article, that is policy. It has been suggested to delete and "salt" but this would actually be "resalt". The salting of a title is case sensitive and changing the title up can essentially game the system. It can be by good-faith mistakes and bad-faith games but is still a means of circumventing the "spirit of community" consensus. In my opinion once this has been brought to light it changes the possible outcome.
3. It would not be forum shopping to alert the admin that salted the title. Otr500 (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. TO OTR500 & THE REST OF YOU: The recreation of the article is, without question, a subversive act. I've been in NY nightlife all of my life. I have worked closely with the subject, Noel Ashman, and known him 25 years. Funny how I never knew he had a middle initial. However, this I do know: Noel Ashman been trying to raise funds and secure a location for a new venue for some time now, but the press coverage on his last three places is so damning and horrendous (see the stuff sourced and referenced above by some other user), that he went and UN-salted his Wikipedia page in order to provide some positive coverage. But I guess that only works if nobody edits the self-serving Wikipedia Page that Mr. Ashman likely whipped up on his own. Thenightisyoung (talk) 06:15, 31 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Hancock (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 have added links to two reviews but cannot find any other WP:RS. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Has been tagged as relying too much on primary sources since 2007. Tacyarg (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Was PRODed in 2008 but I can't find the discussion. Tacyarg (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet notability guidelines. I have to admit that when I first read "Christian science fiction" I thought it meant Hancock was a Christian Scientist who was a fiction writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 30 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Taylor (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 lacks any reliable sources. One is IMDB, which is just plain not a reliable source. Another is a British tabloid. Interestingly enough, the main point of that article, Taylor explaining about how she felt about having sex with a specific person, is not mentioned in this article, possibly because previous editors realized that making such an allegation based on a tabloid article was not justified, but if the main point of an article is not justified, it is not a workable source. The third is a vacuous article from a lifestyle publication about Taylor's house. None of this is the reliable, 3rd-party sourcing to show notability, and nothing about her career as an entertainer is anywhere near notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- I'm failing to find significant coverage of the subject. Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:ENT as the roles are all minor. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 24 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asta Garabaghi (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 article, moreover, it is completely unsourced. Harut111 (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 10:22, 23 January 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 January 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artsakh-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

• throws hands in the air I'm having trouble here. It seems to be a real thing, but the sources are evanescent. And they keep referring back to Wikipedia itself. The az wiki page has one ref, but it is broken: [35]--Theredproject (talk) 22:48, 25 January 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. Killiondude (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Poster Cinema (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 film production and distribution company seems to have started up in 2017. I can find no in depth coverage of the company in reliable, independent sources, and this article is just a free advertisement created by an undisclosed paid CoI editor. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 10:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 10:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 10:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]