Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 December	12 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fusionviewer[edit]

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

I don't believe this software is notable enough to maintain its own separate article about. PROD was declined and citations were added, but on inspection, they are not suitable to support a claim of notability.

The first source, "A new application for displaying and fusing multimodal data sets", shows Karl G. Baum as an author. Baum's company, KGB Technologies, is the creator of FusionViewer (see the note at the bottom of the first page of that article). Therefore, the article is not independent and cannot support a claim of notability.

The second article, '"FusionViewer: An open source display application for PET/CT medical images" opens with the words "we have developed an application..." then continues, "The application (FusionViewer)". Again, not an independent source, as it is a source written by people who worked on the project.

The third source, "Concepts for Efficient and Reliable Multi-modal Breast Image Reading", trivially mentions FusionViewer in one sentence, two pages in. Trivial mentions cannot support a claim of notability.

Only one other source of any substance was found, and again, it was by Baum, so not independent. All other sources located (and I checked Fusion Viewer, FusionViewer, and Fusion-Viewer to make sure I had all the possibilities) were trivial mentions of the "we used Fusion Viewer to look at some stuff" kind, which are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a niche market and so it may be difficult to find sources for the product. It does seems as though it may have some possible criteria in terms of an academic work, but I am unfamiliar with the criteria in that field. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The creator of the page has the username "Fusionoss" and has only one edit - the creation of the page. That looks like a red flag in terms of COI to me. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not find any independent sources with significant coverage. As Willsome stated, this article and the user who created it are suspicious. DeniedClub ^{❯❯❯ talk?} 15:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conversations 'Bout the Girls[edit]

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

This article is about a play that doesn't seem to be notable. Only cited source is a theater fansite, plus there are a couple of quotes that I guess are supposed to be from local paper reviews, except there aren't enough citation details to find them. Original author removed a prod in 2015; no significant improvements since. RL0919 (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage found save for this LA Weekly article, which paints the play to be an amateur performance - nothing that should be included on Wikipedia. The page also reads like an ad for the play. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Written in promotional tone, and no significant coverage. I can only see trivial announcements and a review in LA Weekly in a search. Fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pornhub. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pornhub Awards[edit]

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

Obviously there is a notability tag here as unfortunately this event’s only notability is from Kanye West’s involvement (all coverage starts with West). This is no AVN Awards (at least not yet). Redirect to Pornhub if you must. Trillfendi (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]

redirect/merge no evidence of notability, but the sourced content could be added to Kanye's page or to the pornhub page with the redirect point to it --DannyS712 (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC) 04:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
merge a mention to either Kanye West or Pornhub. Not notable yet for a stand-alone article. Coverage is all about Kanye. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
redirect/merge - Not notable yet. Only one edition.Guilherme Burn (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
redirect/merge per above. Catrìona (talk) 09:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptographic engineering[edit]

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

Appears to be original research; has read like an unsourced essay for the past 14 years. The premise that "Cryptographic Engineering is the discipline of using cryptography to solve human problems" seems reasonable; however, it is completely unsupported. Perhaps a well-researched article could be written on the topic in the future. But due to the complete lack of sources, this page has nothing salvageable and we should WP:NUKEIT. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are a plethora of sources between Google News and google Books, with whole books being written on the topic. Per nom, however, it is just best to delete it and start over. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The page should be nuked and rebuilt per nom. The single included source has 83 references, of which about half could be used to support this topic to great effect. Not to mention the wealth of reliable sources online. Interesting article, would definitely love to see a solid sourced page on it. DeniedClub ^{❯❯❯ talk?} 15:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Levon Lagvilava[edit]

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

Subject is an MMA fighter. Fails WP:NMMA CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 20:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 20:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 20:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 20:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.PRehse (talk) 11:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pretty much everything that needed to be said was said. A WP:BEFORE search shows no coverage past routine. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. He has a grand total of 1 MMA career victory and his last fight was in 2000, so I think it's highly unlikely he'll get the 2 additional top tier fights he needs to meet NMMA. As for WP:GNG, there are only links to his fight record with no significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suvarna Tiwari[edit]

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

The draft was declined several times for lack of reliable sources and general notability. Author decided to create it in mainspace anyway. Whispering^(t) 19:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just one passing mention and nothing more fails WP:SIGCOV. PlotHelpful (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to meet any WP:MUSICBIO criteria. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability --DannyS712 (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First of all, there was no need for AfD here. You should have speedy redirected the article to draft, R2ed the main article and asked for full temporary page protection (along with watching what the user will do and act accordingly). I have said it all in the draft, there is just no notability here, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 10:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Marcelo Adduro[edit]

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

Does not meet notability. No sources in article and there don't appear to be any in any other location either other than the website of the Philippine Army. BIG BURLEY 19:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources, and my searches bring up nothing containing any kind of details for this Camp. No significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Ordinary military base does not satisfy WP:NBUILD. DeniedClub ^{❯❯❯ talk?} 15:26, 17 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AKD Group[edit]

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

Delete Entirely promotional, all relevent information could be merged with Aqeel Karim Dhedhi (if that also meets notability requirements). References fail the criteria for establishing notability, no intellectually independent in-depth or significant coverage, fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely promotional. They may however meet notability as they have significant press coverage. Also article is biased and they're a whole lot of stuffs left out. PlotHelpful (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keepand redirect. Even if material is to be merged, you have to retain the history for copyright reasons. If it's not to be merged, it's still a valid redirect to the individual. Notability doesn't seem to be an issue, given the Reuters article referenced in a prior deletion debate which says, "Nicknamed “Big Dhedhi” for his ability to move markets, Aqeel Karim Dhedhi heads one of Pakistan’s largest domestic conglomerates, the AKD Group." There seems to be plenty of independent coverage in Google news, although there's certainly PR material as well, so this is a very valid search term. (Note that COI issues have been a problem in this area, however.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to just "keep" after putting in some more referenced material, from Pakistan and beyond, attesting to its place in Pakistani industry. I have concerns about failure to reflect topics globally, given some of the challenges of sourcing content outside of western culture, but both Pakistani and UK sources seem to acknowledge that this firm is substantial. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Reuters article doesn't discuss the company, it only discusses the allegation of insider trading against Aqeel Karim Dhedhi - so that reference doesn't assist in establishing notability of this company. Of the other 5 references you added, most are discussing the chairman and the references to AKD Group are in-passing and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and are not significant coverage. Its not a case of simple adding references from every Google hit that mentions the company, there must be an independent article with in-depth information. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Reuters article clearly establishes that the company is "one of Pakistan’s largest domestic conglomerates". The Independent backs this by describing it as "one of the country’s largest corporations." To further verify its prominence in Pakistan, five years later in 2018 Dawn described it as "capital market giant" while the Daily Express called it a "leading Pakistani securities firm." All of this verifies it is prominent and stable in its position and recognized as such within and without Pakistan. I believe there is sufficient verifiable information for an article in accordance with WP:GNG, although as proposed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AKD Securities (open at this writing), I do believe that AKD Securities should be merged into this. They seem to be one entity. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you are accurately quoting each article, but your conclusions are wildly flawed. In many cases your "quotations" are actually the full extent of the mention in each article. By no means does this clearly establish anything about the company since none of those articles are significant coverage or in-depth coverage about the company and therefore, as I said above, none of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that I did not say that there was substantial information in those articles about this company. I expressed my opinion that these sources confirm that the company is prominent and stable - and I disagree that they do not establish anything about the company. Four different reliable sources across five years attest to its prominence in Pakistan. I believe there is sufficient independent information even in English sources for an article on this company, but as many companies do in other country this one does also have sources in at least one other language. Cf. the Urdu links. (Hence my reference to WP:SYSTEMIC.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point that the references confirm the existence and stability of the company but they do not meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the company according to WP:NCORP. I also cannot locate anything among the urdu links you provided. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit more but don't have time to wade further through the hits that ADK + Pakistan is yielding. I do believe that this company more than meets the spirit of WP:GROUP: "Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product." There seems to be quite a bit of that here. I understand that you disagree but am becoming more confirmed in my own opinion on the matter. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After some of the promotional contents were removed i have decided to change my vote. However the page may still need cleanup, i would do it myself but have a lot doing at the moment, like i state before it passes notability guidelines. PlotHelpful (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reliable sources clearly show it 1) is a major Pakistani company and 2) was notable as a result of the fraud scandal (which seems to make it hard to argue the article is "entirely promotional.") Since WP:NOTTEMPORARY, also hard to argue that the subject of a company article that survived two previous AfD's has somehow had its notability evaporate by the third one. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Once again, the criteria is not a "reliable source". Most references are from "reliable" sources but that doesn't mean they meet the criteria for establishing notability. The guidelines are there for a reason. Can you post the links here to those references that you believe meet the criteria and I'll attempt to show you why they don't. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The references are in the article, in the discussion above, and in the first AfD nomination. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, seeing as you're not prepared to provide specific links, lets go through all of the references. Here's why those references fail the criteria for establishing notability:
- The Reuters reference merely states that Aqeel Karim Dhedhi heads up the AKD Group and goes on to talk about allegations against him of insider trading. There is nothing about the company itself. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- This Independent reference, the exact same. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- This Dawn reference reports that there was no implication that AKD Securities (a different company although it is part of this group) was involved in the "EOBI scandal". As an event, perhaps the "EOBI scandal" may be notable although it is probably one in many thousands of similar lawsuits. But there's no in-depth discussion on the company here, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- This Express reference is a mention-in-passing, reporting that AKD released a report predicting the number of seats won/lost in an upcoming election. That's it. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- This Blooberg report is simply an interview with Aqeel Karim Dhedhi commenting on his favorite stocks and the rupee. Nothing at all about AKD. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- This Pakistan Herald reference is another report on the "EOBI scandal" where two directors and Aqeel Karim Dhedhi were taken into custody. Nothing about the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- This Express Tribune reference is another article on the "EOBI scandal" and contains nothing about the company other than namechecking the fact that Aqeel Karim Dhedhi is an official of the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- Finally, this Pakistan Today reference merely name-checks the company and contains no details on the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
Not a single one of the articles has any in-depth information about the company. References like those are exactly the reason why WP:NCORP was tightened up earlier this year to ensure that the criteria for establishing notability requires at least two references that are more than mentions-in-passing like the ones in the article. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: But note: The concerns of good faith citation bombarding, just to present notability at AFD, is noted. On a search I find that the history section appears to be inaccurate: "...founded in 1947..." and "It began business in 1973..." considering sources that indicate the company may have "began business" as early as 1936. The state of the article is not a question of notability as long as there are sources "out there". Reuters is a good one for notability (I do not just consider one source), but with the added "passing mention" sources (even if rebombed just for this AFD) I think notability is established when added to what I found in a search. Concerns of improper sourcing can be addressed on the article. Otr500 (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question for any of the delete !voters: has anyone tried to identify any sources in Urdu, which are almost certainly out there? UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:57, 17 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 deaths in American television[edit]

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

Unnecessary content fork from Deaths in 2018. We have literally no precedent for spinning off separate lists of deaths grouped by particular domain of notability: not only does a standalone list of "deaths in American television" not exist for any year prior to 2018, none exists for deaths in any-other-country television either. Nor for deaths in any-country literature, or any-country music, or any-country politics, and on and so forth. It's also significantly padded out with lots of fluff and cruft, as it adds literally anybody who can claim any sort of connection to US television at all no matter how tangential: foreign actors who have a few US bit parts in their résumés, foreign actors who are known in the US only because a cable channel imported a foreign show, wrestlers, cameramen, singers who competed on reality shows, Nevada's dead Republican state legislator pimp, and even Aretha Franklin. There just isn't a strong basis for breaking with past practice here: we've never done "Year deaths in American television" before, and a considerable number of the people listed here are irrelevant to the question of whether now is the time to start doing something new. Bearcat (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand that there isn't a precedent for this, but it has to start somewhere. At almost 90,000 bytes, this article would make any article that this would be merged into a very large article indeed. This was a split from the page 2018 in American television which currently is at 619,000 bytes so it would be rather untenable to merge it into that article, at least in its current form. For what it's worth, I already removed many entries from the list and so naturally I was conservative in doing so. I think non-Americans who predominately appeared on American television or are notable for appearing on American television are strong candidates for the list. All the entries are notable, having their own Wikipedia articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Every other year's "Year in American television" page has an embedded list of deaths, which is often every bit as long as this one is — but it's somehow not overwhelming those lists, and 2018 hasn't been such an unprecedentedly death-laden year. And I didn't say anything about non-Americans who predominantly appeared on American television — what I was talking about was non-Americans whose appearances on American television were footnotes to careers that were predominantly in their home countries: for example, there's one guy who never had a single American television role in his life, but is included in this list because an American cable channel imported a foreign show he was in. Which is like saying that a British musician should have her album listed in 2018 in American music if the record label released it in the United States (which no, she shouldn't, because she isn't an American person.) Bearcat (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with removing those kinds of entries from a list like those entries. Regarding other years, it's definitely true that the list of deaths for 2018 is overwhelming the 2018 American television article more than the articles of other years. If the same circumstances apply to other years then certainly I would split them into their own articles as well. It just hasn't been as urgent for other years because they haven't been as detailed as 2018 in American television. The name of the article could be changed though. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Merge back into 2018 in American television to match every other #### in American television article. This was originally split from it to decrease that article's size but since the trimming is still ongoing and the article is much smaller now, it's no longer necessary to have its own article. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you're referring to the main television article, it's still very big. WP:ARTICLESIZE holds that anything over 100,000 bytes is very long. The deaths article is also not a small article. At the very least we should wait until both are trimmed down, especially the main one. I don't think we will get the main television article to below 100,000 though, unless there are more splits. Regarding that there aren't such lists for other years, I intend on making them as it arises. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        This article (section) used to be twice as long until we deleted entries of people with no article and a few other non-TV related people. The other article is almost 200K smaller than it used to be too. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I only think I can get the main article down to 500K which is still five times as large as the rule of thumb for articles to be split, and this article being 90K is itself almost at the point where splitting would be called for (although I don't see it possible). I think we can consider merging if we get to the point where the articles are small enough that it would make sense, after all this was the second largest article on Wikipedia. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        BTW for anyone unfamiliar with the original article, there's an ongoing discussion about trimming it at Talk:2018 in American television#Page length. Suggestions for further trimming are welcome there. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        The 100 kB rule of thumb you cite specifically relates to readable prose. Lists like this aren't meant to be read from beginning to end as would a normal article. And even if they were, this list doesn't have anywhere near that much text; much of its total size comprises references and other wikicode. mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        The rule of thumb is that articles over 50K may have to be divided, not only after 100K. There can of course be exceptions but without any split this article would be among the few largest articles and aren't classified as good articles. It's perfectly reasonable under WP:SPLITLIST and WP:SPINOFF. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2018 in American television is a sprawling monstrosity and adding more stuff would make it even longer. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's down to 567,468 kb now and this article is only 80,857 kb so I don't see how merging them would be a problem. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - 567,000 is a very large article and requires further splitting. Merging other articles into it would be the opposite. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well 2018 in American television isn't the longest of its kind any more. 2017 in American television is 639,597 kb and its deaths section is still intact. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - That article should be split too, just like the 2018 article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Back for consistency with other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:2C2C:3E90:D92A:82 (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 2601:241:300:C930:2C2C:3E90:D92A:82 Actually there is one for 2017 which already exists and we will be doing them for more years and will continue to do so as the need arises, so this is not one-off. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Return content to 2018 in American television The split was done without any minimum discussion on a proper talk page; both splits on that (including 2018 in American television network changes) should be returned into the main article and a proper discussion on the talk page (along with WT:WPTV for further consensus) be done before any split is decided. Nate • (chatter) 08:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Mrschimpf Splits don't require a discussion. I acted WP:BOLDLY and with affirmation from other editors to reduce the size of the article as prescribed by WP:ARTICLESIZE. I've done many splits before, and there ought to be a reason for undoing a split. If not for these splits, the article would be the largest English Wikipedia article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - A split that large requires some kind of minimum discussion. BOLD is for obvious things that are commonly agreed should be done without getting multiple processes involved, which this certainly was not. WP:HASTE makes this clear; discussion should always be done before something like this is considered. Nate • (chatter) 08:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've done much bigger splits and content removals without any controversy or discussion. This one was just as obvious and there wasn't opposition. This isn't a major change, the content is still there, it's just on another page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - "BOLD is for obvious things" It is not in any way restricted to such edits. please stop misrepresenting it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Return content to 2018 in American television. While anyone can edit such articles, anything television-related should be under the umbrella of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, and any major overhauls should be discussed there first. — Wylie pedia @ 02:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "any major overhauls should be discussed there first" Not so, per WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nobody here seems to be expressing any reason why the content should be part of 2018 in American television. As a very very large article, it was appropriate to split it per WP:SPLITLIST as this is a natural way to split it since it was already split in the article itself. People can read Talk:2018 in American television if they want to see that these splits were indeed discussed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on keep or delete, but do not restore to the parent article as that is still far too long. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A valid WP:SPINOUT article that conforms with WP:SIZERULE relative to the size of the 2018 in American television article, which is presently at 634 kb (!). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:SIZERULE. Also might need changing to 2018 deaths in television to avoid Anglophone bias. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW close. Some people (including the nom) support a rename, but nobody appears to support deletion at this point. AfD is not a great venue to debate a contentious WP:ARBPIA rename discussion. I will procedurally open an RM discussion. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beersheva bus station shooting[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS - no significant sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources Nableezy 16:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An obvious one actually. The lynching of Zarhum (a rather rare case in Israel in which an innocent bystander was shot and then lynched and killed) generated WP:SUSTAINED WP:SIGCOV - [1][2][3][4][5][6] Also Zehavi, Adar. Migration through the Membrane of the Israeli Law. Diss. University of Amsterdam, 2017 or this book for instance. Icewhiz (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Id be fine with an article on the lynching as that actually has sustained coverage, but that isnt what this is. nableezy - 20:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Part and parcel of this event.Icewhiz (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your source seems to only think to mention the lynching. The only thing that is notable about this is given a paragraph, whereas the shooting itself has no sustained coverage at all. nableezy - 21:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a number of sources, they do cover the rest of the shooting as well. I keyworded Zarhum simply because that was a trivially notable aspect here - which should have been evident in a WP:BEFORE prior to nomming this - the assertion in the nomination of no coverage being quite clearly false. There is an 18 minute award winning documentary as well - Death in the Terminal which covers the entire event as one event.[7][8] Icewhiz (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you provided a number of news sources, which by your own argument are primary and do not establish notability, the one secondary source is about the lynching. I maintain an article on the shooting fails WP:NOTNEWS, though I agree an article on the lynching would be appropriate. nableezy - 21:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, secondary. As is the documemtary and analysis of it.Icewhiz (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry, Im just confused. You previously wrote that newspaper articles are WP:PRIMARYNEWS and do not establish notability. Is that not the case? nableezy - 22:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In different circumstances (articles close to an event, 30 years old). If you actually read what you just linked to, you will see that in some circumstances NEWSORG coverage is primary, and in others secondary. And the documentary movie is quite obviously not a newspaper.Icewhiz (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from the arguments provided by my predecessors, who and which I agree with, I am a little worried about the nomination for deletion on 4 articles from Category:Palestinian terrorism by one and the same editor, whose POV is well-known. Debresser (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Change name to Lynching of Haftom Zarhum, if you have seen the pictures of that lynching/torure, it was extremely ugly, and many, many Israeli bystanders participated, (more than the 4 who got "community service"...also: giving community service for a lynching is an insult to the victim), IMO, Huldra (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "lynch", "lynching," have a peculiar meaning in Israel. In English-speaking countries these words describe a prearranged, premeditated extrajudicial killing by a group, that is, a group that assembles for the purpose of killing a particular individual, locates him, and kills him without benefit of law. In Israel it is used more loosely, in this instance, the Israeli press used it to describe a spontaneous attack on an individual who was presumed (because of his skin color,) to be the perpetrator of a terrorist attack and was killed at the scene by bystanders who mistook him for a terrorist. But it is also used for sudden street violence that flares in places where young men hang out and someone gets beaten up. It would be misleading to rename this terrorist attack and mob attack on a misidentified victim as a "lynching" in an English-language encyclopedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per arguments above, there is significant coverage including a documentary film. Melcous (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article seems well sourced to me. In my opinion passes WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage, international wide significance. WP:GNG, BabbaQ (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep passes WP:NCRIME, WP:SIGCOV, and note that a film was made on subject.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that article meets WP:DIVERSE. Editors have also brought up multiple other notability-meeting criteria such as WP:CRIME and WP:SUSTAINED. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Gush Etzion Junction attack[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS - no significant sustained coverage in secondary sources Nableezy16:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:SUSTAINED international coverage through 2018 - [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. Heck - TOI even have a tag (and lots of items over the years) - [17]. Meets WP:NCRIME.Icewhiz (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote elsewhere that newspapers are primary sources. Do you have any non-primary sources that show significant, sustained coverage? nableezy - 17:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether news reporting is primary or secondary depends on context - and specifically age matters.Icewhiz (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:DIVERSE The event appear in books [18] and still discussed in news in 2017 [19] so meet WP:SUSTAINED --Shrike (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apart from the arguments provided by my predecessors, who and which I agree with, I am a little worried about the nomination for deletion on 4 articles from Category:Palestinian terrorism by one and the same editor, whose POV is well-known. Debresser (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then worry, as there likely will be more. nableezy - 20:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply non notable, Huldra (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this meets WP:DIVERSE and WP:SUSTAINED per coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this attack is discussed in Discussed in at some length in Chapter 25 [20] of Anti-Zionism on Campus: The University, Free Speech, and BDS, by Andrew Pessin and Doron Ben-Atar, Indiana University Press, 2018." E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NCRIME, WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes GNG and WP:CRIME. --1l2l3k (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: major crime covered in international press. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:17, 16 December 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 per Wikipedia:Snowball clause. I have weighed the discussion rationale (overwhelmingly "keep"), concerns of possible inappropriate editor actions, and find there is ample evidence this article passes the criterion for early closure having internationally "sustained coverage" for inclusion. Non-admin closer: Otr500 (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lions' Gate stabbings[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. No significant sustained coverage in secondary sources. Nableezy 16:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not run-of-the-mill news. It is part of a wider conflict. The assailant here is Muhanad Halabi and the motivation according to the nytimes is entirely political. "Mr. Halabi, a 19-year-old law student at Al Quds University, had been morose since the Sept. 22 death of his friend Dia Talahma, 21, who the Israeli military said died when a grenade he was throwing at troops in the occupied West Bank detonated too early. Mr. Halabi replaced his profile picture with one of Mr. Talahma."[21] Bus stop (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly not a routine event, so NOTNEWS does not apply. Wide international coverage spurt at the event itself. Continuing WP:SUSTAINED coverage on a national level - [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] satisfying WP:NCRIME. Interesting question on how the bravery award from the Israeli police would rank in the Israeli award system (for WP:SOLDIER(1)) - as it seems to have a been a one-off award - in any event that would be relevant for a bio article.[34] I would retitle to HaGai Street stabbing as more accurate - this was not at the gate itself.Icewhiz (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apart from the arguments provided by my predecessors, who and which I agree with, I am a little worried about the nomination for deletion on 4 articles from Category:Palestinian terrorism by one and the same editor, whose POV is well-known. Debresser (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per wider context. per sources. wide international coverage. WP:GNG applies as well.BabbaQ (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NCRIME, WP:SIGCOV. Plus User:Debresser raises a valid point about the WP:DISRUPT appearance of an editor simultaneously nominating 4 (now 5) well-sourced, longstanding articles on articles in Category:Palestinian terrorism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mahamba[edit]

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

A Non-notable fringe creature, originating mostly with the book A Living Dinosaur?: In Search of Mokele-Mbembe and similar to Ngoubou, Muhuru, Burrunjor, and Ropen, etc. A redirect to List of cryptids is unsupported, since that's a list of mystery animals notable enough to have a page, and provides no information to someone looking for "Mahamba." --tronvillain (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. tronvillain (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. tronvillain (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any sources for it that meet WP:FRIND, unfortunately. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WEAK Delete Not sure that fringe is really being applied here correctly, but if we accept the definition being used it fails notability.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE. Came from RS noticeboard. No sources are cited in the article. Usual searches only turn up user-generated or self-published sites. Chris vLS (talk) 07:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any independent sources, mostly turned up blogs and other SNS. FiendYT ★ 06:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nissan Terrano[edit]

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

While this model of vehicle exists, it doesn't seem notable. There is coverage like this and this but I don't see WP:GNG. Most of this content exists at Nissan Pathfinder but one editor insists on hijacking the redirect. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources have these as being the same exact vehicle known under different names in different parts of the world, I would say merge because it would be silliness to have two articles for the same thing, but otherwise, I'd go with keep per WP:PRODUCT because Nissan's article would get way too big if we put the information for all of their products on the company article, and if the vehicles are not the same, we shouldn't redirect to something loosely related either. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 01:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was gonna say "Merge", but seeing that the name was used on different cars, I say we keep the article, but re-edit it as a vehicle disambiguation article like Kia Pride and Mazda Familia Van. - Areaseven (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I declined the draft of the extra Nissan Terrano page, I support keeping this particular page. This model seems different to the Pathfinder (with its use of the Dacia Duster platform) and while it's an WP:OSE cop-out, we do have a history of creating separate articles for vehicles specifically for the European/MENA/North American/Asian market. I think the problem is more with the editor that Chris troutman mentions. While we should still AGF, editors have to realize that they do not hold dominion over content they add to WP. Bkissin (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This needs to be merged into the Dacia Duster article. It is a rebadged version of this vehicle. Skirts89 (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a notable article on a popular vehicle. It should therefore be kept on Wikipedia. Carajou (talk) 03:22, 12 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St Thomas' Episcopal Church, (Menasha, Wisconsin)[edit]

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

Only two sources cited are published by non-independent sources. I couldn't find any legitimate sources establishing notability. Although the building is old, parish churches are not notable just because they exist. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 00:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every congregation whose members published a history of that congregation is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not enough notability yet. Orientls (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a Harry Weese building. @Orientls, Johnpacklambert, and Willsome429: to reconsider E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at architectural notability standards and I’m struggling to see where this page fits in. Of the two sources added about the architecture of the church, one I could not access and the other devoted about a sentence and a half to the topic - in no way WP:SIGCOV. I don’t see how the church should have a page merely because it is a top work of a notable architect. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, businesses, libraries, churches and other institutions that might not be independently notable usually do become notable when they hire a notable architect to build their building because the coverage of the design is sufficient to pass WP:GNG. c.f. Converse Memorial Library, Holy Trinity Episcopal Church (Greensboro, North Carolina), First Church of Christ, Scientist (New York, New York) and many similar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do exist. For example, "Opposing Mies: The Triangular Constructs of Harry Weese" by Lea Ray, a Chapter in Chicago Architecture: Histories, Revisions, Alternatives(University of Chicago Press, 2005.) has material on this dramatic church steeple, but I cannot access it. There are entire books about Weese's life and work; acessing them might require someone to walk into an actual library. However, Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. We can keep an article on an important building by a major architect and be confident that the sourcing exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an historic building by a notable architect, as above there should be reliable sources book coverage and is it on the NRHB ? Atlantic306 (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per E.M.Gregory. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a notable historical church. It therefore should be kept on Wikipedia. Carajou (talk) 03:24, 12 December 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. Withdrawn. Refs have also been added to the article during the discussion. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Central Council of Probation and After-Care Committees[edit]

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

No significant coverage and the article is unsourced. SL93 (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Organisation is defunct, but was significant while it existed as the central co-ordinating and representative body for probation services in England and Wales. I have added a reference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was very notable. Rathfelder (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why should readers take someone's word for it that it was notable? SL93 (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't take a genius to conclude that the co-ordinating and representative body for probation services for the whole of England and Wales might be notable! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you’re basically calling me stupid...How nice of an admin. SL93 (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nope. It's a turn of phrase. You were asking why we should "take someone's word for it that it was notable". I was pointing out why it wasn't just "someone's word" but common sense given the status of the organisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some readers may know something about the subject. There is certainly literature about it, but it is in the archives, not online. see http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C3354717. There is also more in the Probation Journal, but it is behind a paywall. The fact that at least one Chairman was made a Commander of the Order of the British Empire is sufficient evidence of notability. Rathfelder (talk) 08:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This organisation has a big notority in UK. SaraLiX5 (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: I was originally planning to withdraw this until I saw Necrothesp's comment. I was going to let this play out because of that comment, but I changed my mind. I withdraw this nomination. SL93 (talk) 18:55, 12 December 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 Comparison of instruction set architectures. Randykitty (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of instruction sets[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY This list gives little or no context. Every processor has an instruction set and we have an abundance of lists of computer processors. There's no organizing principle for this directory list. Wtshymanski (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and prune. From a cursory inspection, there are at least a few articles about actual instruction sets, as opposed to all those other entries about everything under the (computer hardware) sun. There probably are enough to justify a list for navigation purposes, but all the other stuff has to go. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Wtshymanski, it's just a big bucket into which ISAs have been dumped. I'm not even sure a more limited list, for navigation purposes, is all that useful; [35] may suffice. Guy Harris (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE - "WP:NOTDIRECTORY" doesn't automatically trump "Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists" as a reason to delete a list. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP but overhaul to contain only "instruction sets" while moving things you don't keep to other lists and articles, such as "List of microprocessors". Please don't use DELETE as an excuse to save you time, per your recent discussion at List_of_instruction_sets#Shouldn't_this_be_a_table?. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment There would seem to be no point investing effort in something that ought to be deleted anyway, which this discussion will resolve. I've no idea what purpose this list is meant to serve. An 8085 has two more op-codes than an 8080 - are they two "instruction sets" or one? What is the organizing principle of this list? What does the reader need to see here? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Crufty and in need of cleanup, but that's not a reason to delete it. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Comparison of instruction set architectures. Seems like a duplicate topic to me. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of ICW events[edit]

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

Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Progress Wrestling events

Despite the parent article being clearly notable, the list of events are simply non-notable events Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reason to imagine that these events are individually notable even at the minimal level required for a short list entry. Referenced only to primary sources and even that not particularly well. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no secondary sources cited Spiderone 10:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Ecuador earthquake[edit]

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

Minimal effects and no lasting impact Dawnseeker2000 13:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dawnseeker2000, as an earthquake expert, can you explain why some regions list all documented earthquakes (c.f. List of earthquakes in Italy, List of earthquakes in the Levant,) while List of earthquakes in Ecuador, which seemed like a reasonable redirect, lists only "notable" earthquakes?E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but to clarify I'm not really an earthquake expert. We have several geologists and seismologists working on earthquake articles, but probably not the extent that I do, simply because I don't have a life. I have been working on the earthquake articles for about the last 7 years, including writing, expanding, and other maintenance activities. I just follow their lead ;) So expert is the wrong term, but experienced is probably a better fit.

The lists are really problematic right now and they are taking some time to get unified with regard to content and acceptable entries. On some of them, maybe even most of them, you'll see a footer at the bottom which links to our notability essay, and those are the ones that have been refined to include mostly notable events. If you don't see that footer at the bottom, it's most likely because I haven't gotten to that list yet. I'm talking about the country lists, by the way. The yearly lists are completely out of control and are not really being worked on by WikiProject earthquakes members.Dawnseeker2000 17:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: As DS said, the lists are out of control, and consistent, let alone equitable, treatment of various events is not to be expected. I believe we have a statement somewhere that the existence of flawed or failing articles does not excuse the presense of similar articles, but I don't recall where it is. The initial stab at earthquake notability criteria is here, though WP:Notability (events) may be more authoritative.

I am a little hesitant to delete this article, as it was a sizeable earthquake, but am unable to find any notability here. I say delete it. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we already deleted this once. Nothing changed, a medium size quake, routine, refs don't establish notability. Szzuk (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McClarin Plastics, Inc.[edit]

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

No evidence this company is notable and has received nothing more than passing mentions or standard run of the mill coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, feels like a PR piece. Skirts89 (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What is sad is that most manufacturing companies will not receive the coverage required to meet notability guidelines. Manufacturing is boring to the main stream media. Being that this company is pretty old, I even did a search through Newspapers.com and found nothing other than routine announcements. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD is not about the quality of the article - this article could no doubt be improved, but that does not impact on whether the company is notable or not. I find a small amount of coverage in mainstream media outside its local regions - an article about a plant closing in Alabama, which mentions the other states which have plants - and also that there is one in China (reported in the Birmingham Business Journal - in Alabama, but outside the town where the plant was) [36], and 4 paragraphs in an article in the Los Angeles Times about employment as an issue in the 2004 presidential election [37]. Books or journals about plastics are the kind of publication I'd expect to find coverage in, rather than mainstream media. I can see that it is mentioned in a 1974 book called Reinforced plastics: theory and practice, but as it's a snippet view only, I can't see how much is about it, or if it's just named [38], and there's an entry in the Modern Plastics Encyclopedia Issue, 1960 [39], though that may be directory-like .... The journal Plastics Technology. Nov 95, Vol. 41 Issue 11, p17. has an article 'Thermoforming advances boost quality, cut costs': "Features several developments in the field of thermoforming highlighted at the 1995 SPE Thermoforming Conference. Development of a CAD/CAM programming of five-axis CNC trimmers/routers by McClarin Plastics Inc." (two other companies are mentioned, but McLarin would have at least 1/3 of a page); Plastics Technology. Mar 2003, Vol. 49 Issue 3, p80 has an article about "Hanover, Pennsylvania-based custom thermoformer McClarin Plastics Inc. Customers of McClarin; Expansion of the company into assembly and painting services; Emphasis of the company on teamwork, training and innovation; Functions of three plants operated by the company."; Industry Week/IW. Aug2008, Vol. 257 Issue 8, p15 has an article which "offers information on the cooperative lean certification training implemented by McClarin Plastics Inc. in the U.S. The company has 20 employees participating in the training along with its 25 suppliers and customers. The objective of the training is to lessen waste, human effort and manufacturing space and time."; Reinforced Plastics. Sep2017, Vol. 61 Issue 5, p257 has an article "McClarin acquires composites company." I don't know whether that is enough to meet WP:NCORP - happy to include the refs in the article if it is. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Perhaps the editors who !voted "delete" (or other editors) would care to comment whether the sources unearthed by RebeccaGreen make this meet NCORP or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears that the company has been covered in other publications. In addition to RebeccaGreen’s comment and links I found the following articles covering the company: [40] and [41] With additional research, the company may have enough independent sources reporting on it to meet the WP:NCORP guidelines. I would suggest continuing to research this avenue before deleting the article. Quorum816 (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As with the references supplied by RebeccaGreen, these are routine announcements. If they counted for notability, every company would qualify for Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I didn't vote before, I thought I'd come back and review the sources I found. As I have been unable to read the articles in the plastics journals, I am basing my judgements on the summaries in the databases, and not assuming that there is commentary or independent analysis in articles which sound like they could just be based on company PR.

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Los Angeles Times	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	2 paras commentary on more complex work but wages not raised, 2 paras quotes from company president
Birmingham Business Journal	Y	N	N	N	N	Statewide business journal, "based on" local paper the Montgomery Advertiser (source link #5 above), which appears to be based on a press release, company website, and quotes from company
Plastics Technology Vol. 41	Y	N	N	N	N	1/3 page report about presentation at industry conference; unknown if it includes any commentary or analysis
Plastics Technology Vol. 49	Y	N	N	N	N	Sounds like it could be based on company PR, so without sighting it, I will say not independent etc
Industry Week/IW.	Y	N	N	N	N	Sounds like it could be based on company PR, so without sighting it, I will say not independent etc
Reinforced Plastics	Y	N	N	N	N	Sounds like it could be based on company PR, so without sighting it, I will say not independent etc
GRBJ	N	Y	Y	Y	N	2 lines in an article about another company's acquisitions - just states that Amtech is merging with McLarin; more about Amtech and its owner Blackford Capital than about McLarin
Total qualifying sources					1	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

So unfortunately for McLarin, it looks like there is only one source that would pass all 5 components of "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - and even that source only gives information about a change in the type of jobs at the factory, but no change in wages, no actual info about the products or manufacturing processes. So, despite finding these sources, I am going to have to vote Delete! RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congo Malaysia Korea Consortium Group[edit]

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

Promotional piece and as far as I can tell, no actual coverage has been received to establish notability. Praxidicae (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article has been scantily sourced, with references to a defunct primary site and a routine announcement. These are insufficient to demonstrate notability and searches are not finding better. The Congo–Ocean_Railway#Present article covers the project in the wider / longer-term context, which seems sufficient.AllyD (talk) 20:46, 12 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Cross Route[edit]

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

Much of the page fails WP:V. A Google search suggests that the term was only used specifically for Qantas/BCPA transpacific/transatlantic services around the 1950s, and was never used more generally to refer to Europe-Australia service via the Americas. Assuming this is correct, the article would fail WP:NOT and would be better off as a paragraph (or less) in the articles about Qantas/BCPA. Sekicho (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article have no significanct coverage, and possibly fails WP:OR as it suspected when I saw the maintaince tag at the top. Sheldybett (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article, other than a lot of original research, is just a list of airline routes. Nothing notable about the term "Southern Cross Route". Ajf773 (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there is OR - it can be stubbed down. This is name harks back a while to at least 1928 - Southern Cross (aircraft)([42]). Used in the 70s - [43]. Covered - here quite a bit. Mentioned in this 2018 Telegraph piece, and covered fairly in depth in this 2017 Telegraph piece - which says "Today, the Southern Cross is preferred by a number of carriers, including Air New Zealand, Air France and United.". I could see a scope for a merge (and re-title) with Kangaroo Route (both being Australia/Europe routes - mirror images) - but not for notability reasons. Icewhiz (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to above sources, also seems to be covered in detail in Australians in the air by Greg Copley published 1976. Note that the route may also be discussed in detail in many other sources without being referred to by this specfic name.--Pontificalibus 20:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found these without trying hard at all:
- "Exchange Of Air Routes In New Agreement". The Canberra Times. Vol. 31, no. 9, 293. Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 7 October 1957. p. 5. Retrieved 13 December 2018 – via National Library of Australia.
- "GIANT AIRLINER ON PIONEERS' TRACKS". The Sun. No. 12, 186. New South Wales, Australia. 16 February 1949. p. 10 (LATE FINAL EXTRA). Retrieved 13 December 2018 – via National Library of Australia.
- "Sydney To US In Under Day". Daily Examiner. No. 7118. New South Wales, Australia. 28 January 1953. p. 3. Retrieved 13 December 2018 – via National Library of Australia.
- "Huge Airliner to Fly Across to Vancouver". The Canberra Times. Vol. 23, no. 6, 822. Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 17 February 1949. p. 3. Retrieved 13 December 2018 – via National Library of Australia.
- "New Jets Ordered For BCPA". The Advertiser (Adelaide). Vol. 95, no. 29, 421. South Australia. 28 January 1953. p. 1. Retrieved 13 December 2018 – via National Library of Australia.
- "SMITHY SHOWED IT WAS JUST A POND". Barrier Miner. Vol. LXII, no. 17, 869. New South Wales, Australia. 3 June 1949. p. 2. Retrieved 13 December 2018 – via National Library of Australia.
- "AS MANY AIRLINES STRUGGLE". Papua New Guinea Post-courier. International, Australia. 17 May 1974. p. 12. Retrieved 13 December 2018 – via National Library of Australia.
- British Commonwealth Pacific Airlines Limited (1951), Spanning the Pacific : BCPA the Southern Cross route, British Commonwealth Pacific Airlines, retrieved 13 December 2018

Which seems to show sustained coverage, at least 1949 to 1974, and significant coverage, and sufficient depth. Aoziwe (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Aoziwe's practical showing of the function of Trove for Australian subjects JarrahTree 13:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but this needs stubification due to the volume of unreferenced content/WP:OR; by the end a merge to Kangaroo route might be reasonable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EXPIRE act[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - one of any number of legislative proposals that failed to be enacted. Fails WP:SUSTAINED as lacking significant and ongoing coverage in reliable sources. There a few and passing mentions only. Not a sufficiently significant milestone to warrant an article outside the Congressional Record. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a failed proposal. NN. Refs aren't saying much. Szzuk (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to be notable for a standalone article. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Carpender[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

No references on the article and it reads like self-promotion. A search for reliable sources is difficult, not notable enough. Also note this article was created by Dana Carpenter herself with 0 references, to promote herself [44]. The unsourced information has been on the article for a long time. Shocking. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable food writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am finding a handful of articles that quote her, but none that are about her. She churns our cookbooks, but I cannot find article aobut her cookbooks, or review of them.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Symbolic Union[edit]

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

There are notability concerns but this is also a case of WP:BLOWITUP. I had tagged this as blatant spam but Iridescent found that "it looks like a genuine attempt to write what the group does, by someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia's conventions". Fair enough but the tone is so proselytic that I don't think this can be edited into something that meets WP:NPOV without basically starting over from scratch. This is most obvious in the "Objectives" section but there are problems throughout. Even calling the founder an "Apostle" (a messenger of God) is dubious if we truly want a neutral tone. Furthermore, it's not entirely clear that the organisation itself is that notable. Of the references provided, most are not third-party, one is an interview and the last three are about a controversy created by a book authored by the CSU founder but only mention CSU in passing. Depending on one's definition of "significant coverage", CSU does not quite meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I think Pichpich has covered it well. This seems like it fails WP:GNG. At the very least, this article needs to be totally nuked and rewritten from a less promotional POV. Skirts89 (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, on the basis of WP:TNT, without prejudice in recreating. Ifnord (talk) 00:48, 18 December 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. As I wrote when I relisted this a week ago, I do not find the "keep" !votes convincing and the same goes for the one "keep" !vote that came in after the relist. Therefore, the final outcome is "delete". Randykitty (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Agarwal[edit]

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

There is no genuine claim of significance other than being the founder of Paisalo Digital Limited (notability of which is questionable itself). Few passing mentions, business profiles or listings are traceable. Other than that there is nothing to corroborate independent notability. Fails on WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Hitro talk 12:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sunil Agarwal has been covered by several mainstream media such as India Infoline, The Wall Street Journal, Moneycontrol.com, India Microfinance etc. and he has an independent coverage on 1. That makes him enough notable per WP:Notability (people). Arif1986 (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are very weak sources. Interviews and business listings are not good enough to make notability case at AfD per GNG. The Wall Street Journal thing is a business profile, not an in-depth coverage, unsure whether it's user-generated. Hitro talk 01:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sunil Agarwal is the founder of Paisalo digital Ltd. (26+ years old company) which is listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange & National Stock Exchange. He deserves to be on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.209.166.149 (talk) 12:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC) — 106.209.166.149 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

See WP:INHERITED. Hitro talk 15:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I find the keep arguments to be exceedingly weak, so I am exceptionally relisting this for a third time, so that more informed "keep" (or "delete") !votes may clarify the issues.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes WP:GNG with sustained significant coverage in multiple very reliable sources as shown by India Infoline and others.-~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibablu (talk • contribs) 16:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are two references from India Infoline [45] And [46]. The first one is an interview and second one is redirecting to homepage of India Infoline. All other sources are either business listings or interviews. I am not able to find any strong source that can support these keep voters claims. Hitro talk 09:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- This AfD has not attracted any experienced editor till now. Keep voters are relatively new or inexperienced and their rationales are not persuasive enough to close this discussion in favour of keep. I do not want to go in deep as I don't have enough evidence but I can trace signs of black hat editing too. Hitro talk 09:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. All keep!votes are from meat0rings.∯WBG^converse 19:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the arguments to keep are not satisfactory; the sources given are not in-depth or non-trivial enough to be considered good enough for GNG Spiderone 10:44, 16 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Nineties (band)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The charting claim doesn't pass NMUSIC #2, as it rests on an uncertified WP:BADCHART (Mediabase) rather than Canada's real notability-making pop charts (Billboard), and the CASBY Awards (a single-station local award that made a bid for nationalized importance in the late 1980s but never actually succeeded) are not prominent enough to get their nominees over NMUSIC #8 — and I've also already had to strip claims from this article (a longlisted Polaris Music Prize nomination and winning the Sirius XM "Emerging Artist Award") that were actually outright false: they were just copy-paste from Mounties, not things that ever actually happened to Gay Nineties. And except for one short blurb in their local hometown alt-weekly the referencing otherwise consists entirely of unreliable blogs and a corporate press release, so they can't even make the basic claim of having enough reliable source coverage to get over NMUSIC #1. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I feel there is enough coverage among these to establish notability: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]. --Michig (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article was poorly written and their accomplishments are slight so far, but Michig found plenty of sources that indicate reliable independent media coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of abandoned highways in the United States[edit]

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

The scope of this new article is untenable for several reasons. There would be literally thousands of examples that need to be added. I pass three segments of abandoned highway on my daily commute each morning, and that's just in the span of a few miles on one single highway.

The second is an issue of verifiability and notability. We can verify the existence of abandoned highway segments on some maps, which is what has been done in most cases here, but have third-party sources, reliable sources, taken note of these things? Most of the various web pages cited here are self-published, so they don't count for that standard. Without "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject", and for that maps don't count as "significant coverage", this fails the basic notability test. Imzadi 1979 → 12:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do news articles, local or national, count as reliable third-party sources? Some of the entries (e.g. I-90 exit 66 in Rapid City, SD) are linked to news articles regarding their closure. I'm guessing it depends on the news source as well, but any local news group run by one of the larger national groups (like Fox) should count as a reliable source. Xninetynine (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)X99[reply]

I am adding to this nomination the following related page because the same reasons and issues apply; For this one it is its second nomination and the first one is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unused highways in the United States.

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

UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The list being too long is not a good reason for not having the list as an article - instead it can be dealt with via clean-up on the page. Notability is more the issue, I see no independent, reliable sources listing abandoned highways in the United States. As such WP:GNG is failed. FOARP (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you say that there are too many things to add, they could be ranked by importance. Important- this entire four mile section of highway used to go a different direction. Unimportant- there used to be an exit ramp here leading to a nameless county road. Of course, there would be more criteria to rank importance, but for shortening the number of entries needed to be added, it's a start. As for reliable sources, slabs of concrete visible by satellite or the naked eye seem like they would count as a reliable source. If adding map coordinates to every entry would help, I'll work on that. Xninetynine (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)X99[reply]
- @Xninetynine: yes, we can verify that something exists. However, the test for whether or not we have an article isn't if we can verify the existence of a thing, but rather if there is "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Otherwise my driveway, which very much exists, would have an article. We don't need coordinates; we need sources specifically discussing the topic of abandoned highways. Outside of the Abandoned Pennsylvania Turnpike, I just don't find sources discussing this topic outside of roadgeek websites that can't be used because they're self-published. Imzadi 1979 → 15:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you want a proven reason why each piece is abandoned? Also, your driveway isn't abandoned. It might be empty, but it's still used. In the meantime, the list has been updated. All current entries correspond to national or state highways. Xninetynine (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)X99[reply]
  - Most of the list entries have reasons for abandonment in their respective descriptions. Some don't, so I will either remove those or find valid reasons. Xninetynine (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)X99[reply]
    - The issue here is not the references for each item, the issue is that the topic of listing abandoned highways per se has no reliable sources indicating notability: basically, I'm looking for reliable sources also including lists of abandoned highways to show that its a notable subject. If you can show that, then I'd vote keep. FOARP (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - @FOARP: does this work? It is a worldwide list, but a list nonetheless. Xninetynine (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)X99[reply]
        Considering that's self-published, essentially a blog posting, no, it doesn't quite work for notability purposes. Imzadi 1979 → 00:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not just a blog post, it's a showcase of a Flickr page with over a thousand pictures of abandoned roads on it. People are interested in this stuff. That should be a reason to keep it. Xninetynine (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)X99[reply]
        Your first sentence proves my point. The source doesn't meet WP:RS requirements. Imzadi 1979 → 01:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        So Flickr isn't a reliable source? Xninetynine (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)X99[reply]
        No, it isn't. Flickr itself isn't a source, nor is YouTube or Twitter. Those sites republish the material of others, so everything there, by definition, is self-published. (There are some exceptions, but they don't apply in this case.) Imzadi 1979 → 00:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        What about news sources, local or national? Would news articles on why the roads were closed count as reliable sources? Xninetynine (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)X99[reply]
        Yes, but only for the specific facts on the specific roads. You'd still need some sources about the concept in general. Without something on the concept, the list isn't notable. (Also, please indent your comments using only asterisks; doing something else breaks the bulleted list.) Imzadi 1979 → 01:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as semi-nominator. WP:NOT implies WP should not have lists of things, if none of the listed things are individually notable. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I could support the deletion of the other list as well, but perhaps this discussion should remain focused on the original article, and we can apply any results here to the other list, and its sub-lists afterwards. Imzadi 1979 → 22:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This list could easily become an unwieldy nest of WP:OR and WP:SPS violations. Sounder Bruce 01:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat separate argument: since when does the word "unused" mean "never used before" rather than "not used at the current time"? This is what started this whole thing: back in May when half the List of unused highways in the United States page was removed for being abandoned roads, rather than never-used roads. That issue (the real definition of unused) should be figured out first, and the pages fixed accordingly. Xninetynine (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)X99[reply]
Delete both. If the "unused" portions of each highway are worth mentioning at all, which I don't think they are, they should be listed on each highway's respective article. At best, they are WP:TRIVIA. –Fredddie™ 18:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, the articles should stay up for at least a few months, long enough to move all unused and abandoned sections to their respective road pages. Xninetynine (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)X99[reply]

With the small number of votes, and only one of them Keep, it looks like the page will be deleted. However, can it be moved temporarily into draft space so the listings can be moved to their respective road pages before they are fully deleted? Xninetynine (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)X99[reply]
No. Copy the article content off-wiki if you want to try using it in the future. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - first, there are sub-pages such as List of unused highways in Florida that should have the same fate; I'm not sure if they should be bundled (as part of a re-list) or simply nominated after this is closed. The current scope (which attempts to be a list of every closed/reconstructed off-ramp in the United States) is unmanageable. Without a reasonable suggestion for how to improve the scope, this will be deleted. If an editor wants to maintain this in userspace to add the material to other articles where appropriate (such as articles on the closed highways where those exist) I think that would be fine. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Power~enwiki: How do I move the pages to userspace? (I kinda just started out here.) Xninetynine (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)X99[reply]
  - Hopefully the closing admin will do it for you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. There is no independent coverage to show if the lists are important. Lorstaking (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Ultimately, there is no evidence of significance or notability. I agree that we should try to AfD ones like List of unused highways in Florida after the conclusion of this one. Spiderone 10:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice to the creation of a redirect to an appropriate target. Randykitty (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matzav[edit]

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

Procedural nomination on behalf on an IP editor. Their rationale is

No outside coverage, existing sources appear unreliable; fails WP:GNG. 99.203.30.151 (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reyk _YO! 12:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and redirect to Israel Policy Forum per nom. This is not notable, and it has a promotional tone. WP:SPIP at best. wumbolo ^^^ 13:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The way this article is constructed, it seems to have been written for no purpose otherthan to prove the notability of the subject, using strained language, poor form, and ref bombing to create an overall effect of a man stuttering while trying to explain what this even is. Whether we should have an article on this subject or not, we shouldn't have this article at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply a simplistic promotional piece. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- yeah, this is a cynically refbombed promotional blurb. Reyk _YO! 08:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Author's note: A redirect from [[Matzav Review]] seems like a more correct answer. There are actually three contenders: matavreview.com, matzav.com and YWNmatzav.com; an article on YWN (Yeshiva World News) was edited to take out the "See also" for [[Matzav]] to read:
"* Matzav (no longer refers to the https://matzav.com site)"
rather than take time to write a stub (or, better yet, an article). My attempt, I concede, should be marked WP:TNT. In fact support, albeit weak, appears to be implied by the above 20:31 11 December 2018 Delete opinion. WP:TNT? Pi314m (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Author's WP:TNT contribution - (a) The New York Times includes a thanks for a link to Matzav.com (b) In all of what I scribbled, I failed to include even a hint to what the (Hebrew) word means. The NYTimes URL is https://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/a-simple-fix-for-a-tragic-mistake

P.S. In other words, I sort of "bombed" at even REFbombing!

P.P.S. As for someone's saying WP:SPIP, what really got me to write this is that, after citing matzav.com (yes, they seem to do more than just aggregate), I was curious to see if there was a Wiki article on them and found what looked like Wiki-cybersquatting: the redirect at [[Matzav]] was created last year. FYI, WHOIS regarding the website matzav.com says created on 2003-07-30, and WHOIS on MatzavReview.com says created 2017-12-27

P.P.P.S. Please re-read the top of this indictment: "Procedural nomination on behalf on an IP editor. Their rationale is No outside coverage, existing sources appear unreliable"

Is someone saying that The Jewish Press is "unreliable"? IS NYTimes (parenting.blog.nytimes) also "unreliable" ? Pi314m (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian FMCG companies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems to be an unnecessary article as it attracts spam and ads, and the scope of this list doesn't seem to cover extensively Indian FMCG companies plus it's formatted/written poorly without proper information (WP:NOT). Additionally, the size doesn't justify WP:SPLIT, if the material is truly needed I suppose it can be covered at another article, for example Fast-moving consumer goods. Flooded with them hundreds 12:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - This is purely promotional and serves no additional purpose to WP. Skirts89 (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 10:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Madrasah Riyazul Uloom[edit]

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

A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing but WP scrapes, some videos, and a wholly unrelated establishment in Odisha. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Narky Blert (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources can be found by the looks of it Spiderone 10:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now there are thousands of Madrasah or Islamic school in India.Now clear how this particlar one is notable Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From the website it looks like quite a visually impressive institution/campus. It is also mentioned several times in this Hindustan Times article, and a mention crops up in this FirstPost article. Clearly an important place, but I can't find sufficient sources to pass WP:ORG. Cesdeva ^(talk) 23:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iftikhar Ahmed (Swiss lawmaker)[edit]

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

Seems person's resume. Failed WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and also Wikipedia:Notability (academics). ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 11:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this person was a member of the 50-person municipal legislative council (conseil communal) of Founex (pop. 3,800). This fails WP:POLITICIAN by a long shot, and even "lawmaker" is a bit grandiose. No opinion about his notability otherwise. Sandstein 11:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a municipal councillor in a small town is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass, the article shows nowhere near enough sourcing to make him a special case among an otherwise non-notable class of topic, and his ethnic background doesn't automatically make him special in the absence of a WP:GNG pass either. Every possible combination of birth country and officeholding country on earth either already has or eventually will produce a "first ever" person with that particular combination of countries in his pocket — so that's not a notability freebie in and of itself for a person who hasn't passed any other notability standard, and "Bangladesh-Switzerland" does not occupy some special sphere of notability unmatched by other combinations. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article seems to want us to think that Ahmed is in the national legislature. No matter how small the municipal council of Founex was, it would not be a sign of notability. With 50 members, being on it is absurdly far from notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sayed Delaor Husaein[edit]

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

The following reasons article failed to be notable per WP:ANYBIO:

The person did not receive a well-known and significant award or honour, or not been nominated for such an award several times.
The person did not make a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field.
The person has no entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication.

Also failed WP:BASIC.

Note: Bengali article has been deleted from Bengali Wikipedia due to failed notability. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 11:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Appears to be a memorial for a non-notable scion of a family of religious leaders. Sources mention him in the context of the family.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical Vomit[edit]

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

Band that does not have significant coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Search turns up nothing other than music download sites. No reliable sources. Appears to be WP:OR by SPA editor. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Appears to be a classic case of WP:YAMB written by a band member as promotional material. The fact that all their music is available to download for free from their Bandcamp website isn't a good sign, if they feel unable to charge for it. Richard3120 (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BAND. Irrelevant how their music is spread, paid for or not; they simply do not have the chart-topping, award-winning, or otherwise newsworthy music that the notability guideline requires. Ifnord (talk) 00:55, 18 December 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) » Shadowowl | talk 15:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alhassan Nuhu[edit]

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

Not shown to have played for any of the clubs listed in the infobox. Fails WP:NFOOTY » Shadowowl | talk 10:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY due to appearances in the Ghana Premier League (listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues) with Ashanti Gold, per Soccerway. Article needs improving/updating, not deleting. R96Skinner (talk) 12:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY per sources. Smartyllama (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per the sentiments above. Needs improvement, but he meets WP:NFOOTY. 21.colinthompson (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above, meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I've updated and added refs to the article. Nzd (talk) 12:15, 13 December 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. With apologies for the wrong close a few moments ago... Randykitty (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nuhu Bamalli Polytechnic, Zaria[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. Only source is their own site. » Shadowowl | talk 10:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tertiary non-profit institution. I'm seeing a lot of sources when I check Google News. BIG BURLEY 19:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Every accredited tertiary institution should have a Wikipedia article. HandsomeBoy (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NuBuilder[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCT and WP:GNG. The company that makes this software does not have an own article. Sources are their own site and their own github page. Created by SPA with same name as company back in 2009. » Shadowowl | talk 10:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not enough sources to even come close to meeting WP:NPRODUCT. – Teratix ₵ 12:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete nom has done a thorough before so i've nothing to add. Szzuk (talk) 21:49, 17 December 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) Ifnord (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dorinda Stevens[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep under WP:NACTOR. Appeared in at least three "notable" films (Jack the Ripper, Horrors of the Black Museum, and Night Train to Paris) which were reviewed in the New York Times ~~and~~ and/or San Francisco Examiner, ~~all of~~ which mentioned her by name with photos. I have improved the citations for the article accordingly. I expect to find more in the British Newspaper Archive when I can visit my local library to get around the paywall. --Muzilon (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing in notable (and that's debatable too) films is not enough. Per NACTOR, you have to have "had significant roles in multiple notable films". 13th billing in Jack the Ripper and no mention at all in the New York Times review, 12th billing in Horrors of the Black Museum, and, while she does have 3rd billing (and a couple of lines in the review) in Night Train to Paris, that hardly qualifies as a notable film. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I merely named those three films as probably her best-known work in the USA – she was better known in the UK. Night Train may not be a "great" film, but as it was reviewed in the NYT and Film Daily and has its own WP article it would appear to qualify as a "notable" one (unless you also intend to challenge its inclusion in WP under WP:NFILM). See also her co-starring roles in Hair of the Dog and The Gentle Trap. --Muzilon (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable in the NACTOR sense is not, AFAIK, the same as notable in the weaker Wikipedia sense (i.e. justifying an article). If that were the case, we'd be inundated with articles for journeyperson actors. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, Wikipedia is full of biographies for C-list actors most of us have never heard of, but I guess that's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm sticking with my original vote for a weak keep.--Muzilon (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to have been the subject of WP:SIGCOV. I believe The Stage is an RS, and you can see her obit there, which combined with the other sources means she meets WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - genuinely nonplussed by this nomination. The subject appears to me as the article's creator to have had a notable career and this is a valid article here. Jack1956 (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that we're seeing too many one-sentence deletion proposals for articles that clearly require more reasoning than that. I can still buy a deletion proposal for an article even if it has lots of references so long as its well argued. If the proposer doesn't take the time to explain why it should be deleted unless it's an open-and-shut case they really are just wasting people's time. FOARP (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as noted above there does seem to be notable coverage of her work in films which are considered notable, and I would tend to agree with the point that the proposer could do with making a clearer argument as to why they think the article should be deleted. Dunarc (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability clearly established. Article fully sourced and referenced. Dreamspy (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, refs look fine, probably qualifies as snow. Szzuk (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Parashar (journalist)[edit]

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

Journalist with no significant contribution and Significant coverage in third party reliable sources. Most of references are either self-contributed editorials or are with irrelevant citations. Simply, the subject fail to meet the Wikipedia's notability criteria for person/bio. — Sanskari ^Hangout 06:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Pankaj Parashar is Chief Sub Editor of Hindustan Times group. He is a documentary film maker too. Pankaj Parashar recently made a documentary film named "The Brotherhood". This documentary film has gained great popularity. On which all the newspapers in India have published the news. The Brotherhood: Trailer of film based on Dadri lynching released on YouTub The Brotherhood documentary film based on Mob Lynching will be ...The Brotherhood: Documentary Based On Mob Lynching To Be Released On August 15 15 अगस्त को रिलीज होगी 'द ब्रदरहुड', मॉब लिंचिंग पर .दादरी: अखलाक की दास्तां सुनाएगी मॉब लिंचिंग पर बनी ये डॉक्यूमेंट्री You can read about the film and Pankaj Parashar too. I think these are country's largest media houses and reliable sources. Regards Vikram Sharma — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.142.33.182 (talk) 11:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Pankaj is known journalist and has contributed significantly to the media industry. He has exposed various corruption rings in the govt. Currently Mr Pankaj is choosen president of Noida media Club by media industry veterans which is itself enough to substantiate the credibility of the person. Hence the article should not be deleted. His documentaries has highlighted the atrocities in the Indian society further spreading the message of harmony and peace. Kindly refer to the link https://www.news18.com/news/movies/the-brotherhood-documentary-based-on-mob-lynching-to-be-released-on-august-15-1841291.html . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.74.78.194 (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sheetal currently perusing Masters in journalism and communications from a reputed institute in Noida. I did my internship under the guidence of Mr. Pankaj Parashar. He has been a great source of learning and motivation. I have always adhere by his skills and learnt what journalism is about. Deleting such profile will only disconnect the medium between a mentor and a student. His work has been shown is our lectures and several case studies have been conducted on his research stories. Lets not flow with the negative wind and save this profile from deletion. You can read his eminent work at these links https://www.hindustantimes.com/bollywood/the-brotherhood-trailer-of-film-based-on-dadri-lynching-released-on-youtube/story-J5405BCYGusggtQ1GlUYRP.html and http://m.epaper.dbpost.com/bhopal/12/31012018/6/ Regards Sheetal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.242.231.19 (talk) 09:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't exist as a medium between a student and mentor. You need to look at what we are and what we ain't. In the meanwhile, editing logged out can get you blocked.∯WBG^converse 19:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per nom.∯WBG^converse 19:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources Spiderone 10:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable per WP:SIGCOV. — MapSGV (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing notability guidelines as detailed above. It's not a comment on him as a person or teacher, simply that he's just not notable enough to be in a global encyclopedia. Ifnord (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of AMR number-one singles of the 1990s[edit]

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

The single sole source for this list is Kent Music Report, which was not the "official" chart of Australia in this time period as ARIA had taken over in 1988. Additional sourcing will be needed to indicate any significance of reaching number one on this chart during this time frame, as no song articles themselves list this chart in their chart sections – it is always and only ARIA for Australia. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if no reliable secondary sources can be found for this then I don't think that it should be on Wikipedia. Spiderone 10:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Lecron[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. While this is backed up by reliable sources, this person is only notable for a single event. CoolSkittle (talk) 07:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:BLP1E. Given the facts as described in the article, many British folks could be similarly accused in the run up to Guy Fawkes Night. Cabayi (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BLP1E. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a significant plan to commit mass murder.WaterwaysGuy (talk) 12:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly a significant plan. So far it's just an arrest, not a conviction. Cabayi (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This woman is accused, not yet convicted. Per WP:BLP "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured"

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — obvious violations against BLP policy. The one thing you could try to argue she is notable for, she is only suspected of. Given that there will be a trial, assuming guilt at this stage also violates NPOV.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator and everyone else. BURLEY-XXII 19:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burley22 (talk • contribs) [reply]
Delete I originally nominated under the same pretext, the delete tag I placed was removed. Comatmebro (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. The bombing plot itself might well pass per WP:RAPID (very wide burst of coverage - but currently limited to one burst - recent event) - however given that the article is on the BLP and not on the plot, calling RAPID is not appropriate in my eyes. The individual quite possibly will be notable in the future (i.e. my crystal ball sees more coverage here), given the peculiar nature of this case, however that hasn't happened yet. Icewhiz (talk) 07:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isha Ambani[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO The sources are way too weak to pass GNG. It is essentially routine rehashes of press releases. For the moment she has achieved nothing notable enough to get in depth coverage on her own merits. A good deal of the sources are about her father and she gets a passing mention. The rest are articles announcing that her father appointed his children as board members of his company aged 23. The rest is a forbes list and reports of the Forbes list. Probably the work of WP:UPE editors. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is one of those articles, similar to one I just nominated elsewhere, which at first glance looks well-sourced and legitimate. Digging deeper into the sources, though, shows they are simply incidental mentions and WP:ROUTINE coverage including lightly paraphrased press releases from outlets of questionable quality. Another case of WP:REFBOMBING. Wolfson5 (talk) 06:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello. I believe the article deserves to be kept at present. She has been listed by Forbes, as mentioned, and has also been covered across several verifiable independent publications such as USAToday, Economic Times, etc. She clearly passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG and this suggests that keeping the page is the best course of action. Also, considering the page views that this has received recently, it is fair to say that her notability is not in question. I do, however, believe that the page can be further built upon, which is something that can be looked at. 2402:3A80:6A6:E213:28AF:20F9:C820:2AC3 (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has no standalone notability. Cesdeva ^(talk) 22:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited. --Saqib (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She might have her legitimate article in encyclopedia in the future. As of now, it is too soon to include her here. Most of her notability is inherited by her dad and his business empire. Besides, she can't pass GNG on the basis of a grand wedding. Dial911 (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Genuine query- isn't appearing on three Forbes' lists of richest X people an indicator of notability? 2.51.17.28 (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't solely use Forbes to prove notability. Plus these inclusions:1, 2 are in the context of her father's wealth. Cesdeva ^(talk) 15:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should be kept a little longer. Someone please add photo and little detail about the person. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any reasoning as to why it should be kept? Cesdeva ^(talk) 19:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Isha Ambani is notable and a big personality in India and many parts of the world. If celebutantes like Kim Kardashian or Paris Hilton can have articles, she qualifies for it as well. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Highpeaks35, how is she notable? And do go over WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for your second argument. Dial911 (talk) 01:43, 18 December 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Russell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article on a talent agent doesn't appear to pass WP:ANYBIO. It's only sourced to two references:

A business profile in a small-town newspaper (Green County Daily World),
A mention in PopCrunch listcicle as a "hot sports reporter"

My BEFORE was stymied by the fact that there is a better known female basketball player by the same name but, overall, I couldn't find any additional sources that deal with Ashley Russell as a person. Wolfson5 (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is undersourced probably WP:BLP2E, which is not enough to survive this AfD. Sheldybett (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Errr.... you mean WP:1E, right? WP:BLP2E isn't a policy but an essay explaining why people who propose deletion based on someone only being covered in relation to two events are wrong. FOARP (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I can't actually load the references to see what they say - the pages come up 404 - so I have no idea if the two instances of coverage relate to the same person. Popcrunch is not an RS so that reference doesn't count anyway. That leaves us with a single reference covering a single event which is WP:1E. The previous delete discussion appears to relate to a British personality with the same name. FOARP (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article claims she's appeared on the covers of major magazines which doesn't seem totally unlikely if she's a sportscaster. But I can't find them because they're not cited and how common the names are, though I AGF they exist. BIG BURLEY 19:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources do not rise to the level of showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources and I searched a lot. --the eloquent peasant (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable living person. Azkord (talk) 09:35, 17 December 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 and redirect to Siberian fur trade. Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blue squirrel[edit]

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

Accusations of being a hoax here; for this particular article, I'm nominating on behalf of an IP editor. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources do not back up the content at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while not a hoax, the many of the sources are unreliable/misleading or even satire. MarkZusab (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, after reading other people's comments, I have retracted my decision to delete. It appears that this article is about two different things, blue squirrel fur as part of the fur trade in Russia and squirrels dyed blue. Perhaps the article should have a large section deleted, and expand on the fur trade aspect? MarkZusab (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – to Siberian fur trade ~~Note~~ The first paragraph under "Sightings" seems to be speaking of a species of squirrel that may have actually existed in Asia. The sourcing is pretty thin. All of the more contemporary reports come from unreliable sources or "news of the weird" type observations of squirrels that may have encountered blue dye, so I'd argue that that part of the article should be deleted as not noteworthy, while the first part might be kept. In contrast, the article at Purple squirrel (animal) consists only of these sorts of contemporary reports. Photos notwithstanding, they do not appear to be reliably speaking of a naturally occurring squirrel variant. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is or was an actual species like this, that's actually an argument to delete this article, not to keep it, as our article would be confusing a random sampling of dyed grey squirrels with those animals. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update to !vote for redirect. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Blue squirrel fur was exhibited at the Great Exhibition and seems to have been a regular feature of the fur trade in Russia. Andrew D. (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- yes, a squirrel that gets itself covered in coloured dye will end up that colour. This stunningly perceptive observation, plus a handful of "news-of-the-weird" tabloid writeups do not make for an encyclopedia article. Reyk _YO! 10:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is plain by this article here that there is such an animal by the name of "blue squirrel." This may, in fact, be only a blueish-like hue, which appears as such to the naked human eye when looking upon its fur. Perhaps it would be helpful to add the animal's taxonomic name, which has a unique quality of dispelling all doubts about the authenticity of the animal. Without the taxonomic name, the animal in question remains a mystery, with only "reported" sightings.Davidbena (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- If there is a taxonomic name, there's a roughly 99.9% chance that we've already got an article on it under some other title. In that case, the result should be delete and redirect. Barring that, this nonspecific name drop isn't enough for an article even if you combine it with the tabloid crap about dyed animals. Reyk _YO! 18:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Reyk, from the article on the Taiga, it seems that this squirrel is endemic to the arctic or Siberian region. If that is the case, the name "blue squirrel" may only reflect a local dialect of Russian. In any case, there may already be an article on this animal in the Russian language. I'll try and check around for the name in the Russian language.Davidbena (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "blue squirrel? thats as crazy as a purple squirrel ... or a red squirrel" ... "um, excuse me coola, there is a Red squirrel" "oh." Coolabahapple (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: Wait, do folks where you're from (... Australia?) not generally know that red squirrels are a thing? Growing up in Ireland (quite near Saint Anne's Park) in the 1990s red squirrels were the default for me and my primary school classmates. I've never talked to my American colleagues about squirrel taxonomy, but I would be surprised if any of them actually responded with "That's crazy" on hearing that red squirrels were a thing. We have a Purple squirrel (animal) article, but it's not much better than this one, and if opening AFDs wasn't such a pain (Thanks, committee-penned guidelines!) I would probably send that article the same way as this one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Hijiri88, do know about reds (much cuter than the big boofy greys:)), having childhood books like Squirrel Nutkin and ladybird books on british animals, my above comment was to highlight the ridiculousness of having a blue article, i should have realised that wp would also have an article on purple ones....Coolabahapple (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Arguments that this is not a hoax have been unconvincing. Best err on the side of caution. I honestly don't know why people who are unable to find better evidence that this is a real thing would argue otherwise. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I've been unable to find anything on this animal from a scientific (reliable) source.Davidbena (talk) 16:02, 12 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New York City housing crisis[edit]

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

Procedural nom of a declined PROD with rationale "No indication of notability. All sources primary. Further, improper cut/paste move. Would have draftified again, but it was copypasta'd into mainspace. Draft already exists." power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: I think my position can be found among these links:

In terms of notability, I personally think a housing crisis that is being written about in the New York Times is a notable thing.

I propose that all text I added be removed, the article turned into a stub, and leave the intro written by Darwin Naz.

Thanks Seahawk01 (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: also, I would like to add I find the fact that there are 63,500 homeless in New York City, including over 23,500 children, to be notable. And I also find the fact that this homeless rate has increased by 80% over the last decade to be notable.

Like I said, just leave the lead and turn it into a stub. Put it on your watchlist so you can oversee it if I add to it later. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: please explain how all sources are primary. I am using all secondary sources as far as I can tell. Thanks. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You misinterpret my comment; I withdrew a WP:PROD deletion request in favor of this one to allow for discussion by more editors, and copied that rationale here. I'm neutral on this matter; if people feel the content is so problematic that it should be deleted they will have to make their own arguments here. You should feel free to edit/expand the article with referenced content. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think this is more of a neutrality issue than a notability one. However many facts and figures about housing in NY we have, regardless of the sources, we as Wikipedia editors cannot conclude there is a "crisis". Instead, we need to present the arguments and conclusions of experts. The San Francisco housing shortage article is a very good example of what to do: the first paragraph includes the sentence Late San Francisco mayor Ed Lee has called the shortage a "housing crisis",[4] and news reports have said that addressing the shortage is the mayor's "top priority".[5] Properly sources attributions like this are essential to maintaining neutrality in this article. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. As I have mentioned in the Teahouse thread discussing this article, there are existing sources covering this issue from mainstream publications. The NY Times:* pastebin.com/UgsFbkZ8, the NYC government and other sources cite a housing crisis or a problem that reached crisis point, which support its notability. The article needs more contribution and - as some here have mentioned - editing (e.g. proper sourcing, more citations, objectivity) to reflect neutral tone. Darwin Naz (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no question of lack of notability. If there is a neutrality problem, it can be fixed through editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep — The article needs a total overhaul—I wish we could draftify it but that has never achieved much support in my experience. There needs to be more of a historical overview of this subject because I am afraid it suffers from recentism bias.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, rename, redo Using the term crisis in lower case, even if the NYT does, is editorializing. The dicdef is a time of danger or requiring a decision. Yes, the city government wants a change and so do certain advocacy groups. A desire does not establish a topic. New York has always been expensive. That has always made housing hard to find. That is true in every big city from Beirut to Beijing. Housing in New York City or New York housing situation are more to the point. Then, there needs to be some more press articles that support the underlying contention that there aren't enough cheap apartments for pizza deliverypersons to live in. Rhadow (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I would say making it into stub until more work can be done on it is a great idea, since the topic is more then noteworthy. TheMesquito^buzz 14:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously a notable subject, though I'd go with another name and broaden the topic, like "Housing in New York City" as Rhadow suggests above. epicgenius (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable subject, well-written article. Agree with Epicgenius that scope might be broadened slightly, but even without broadening it should stay.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to say I agree that broadening and re-titling are a good idea. For those questioning notability, I'm assuming that you folks don't live in NYC. For those of us who do live there, there's really no question that there's major problem with housing here: a glut of luxury apartment and super-luxury apartments, a severe shortage of affordable housing, and very little available for those in-between, who don't qualify for what affordable housing there is, and can't afford the luxury stuff. Manhattan is almost out of semi-affordable neighborhoods, and the areas of the outer boroughs closest to Manhattan (or easiest to reach there by mass transit) have been constantly ratcheting up in price, some of them to Manhattan-like levels. I know this is all OR in terms of what can go into an article, but I've got to assure you that these aren't simply my observations, they're general knowledge in the city. The problem is most definitely real, and the subject is most definitely notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: But requires re-titling and serious re-writing to meet WP:NPOV guidelines. I do not approve of the copypasta back to mainspace nonsense, this should have been incubated in draftspace. Waggie (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Object to move. Changing the title of the article will not address NPOV issues. Broadening the scope of the article to Housing in New York City is a bad idea; this would be a massive topic that encompasses history, demography, and construction (see Housing in the United Kingdom for an example). The article New York City housing crisis is in no way an overview of housing in New York City, and a move would be misrepresenting the topic. The way I see it, there are only two options for this page. (1) find reliable sources that confirm there is a crisis; present the information they provide on this page. (2) if there are no such sources, delete the page. In either case, someone can create the page Housing in New York City independently. BenKuykendall (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to clarify that the article was in the main namespace and I was in the middle of working on it. I went to IRC to ask a quick question and some user there put it into draft space. So, unfortunately, the article got "frozen" in time. As mentioned about, the only thing I did after was I removed the lead and someone else was kind enough to add a new one. I was fully intending to add more sources, write more text, etc over the next few days, but all work was stopped. I think there are a lot of good suggestions here, so thanks everyone for their time. Seahawk01 (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles moved back to the draft namespace aren't frozen; a draft can still be edited and improved, which is kinda what was explained to you at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 874#had article moved to draftspace and WP:VPI#Suggest Wikipedia does not mention IRC as a source for help. Anyway, articles nominated for deletion can continued to be worked on while they are being discussed; so, feel free to add more sources, write more text, and incorporate any of the suggestions made in this AfD if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Seahawk01 You might want to read WP:NOTADVOCACY: which prohibits "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: ...political... or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view."E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and retitle. It indeed is small and does not present various sides. We lack an article on Housing in New York City, as we have for Transportation in New York City, Economy of New York City and other aspects. This can be be the seed from which the general and balanced article grows. Yes, it may eventually grow so large that WP:Splitting it becomes a good idea. When that happens, do it. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT. Article is ill-defined; a "housing crisis" caused, as described in the article, by high rents, greedy landlords skirting the law, and a dire shortage of new affordable construction has been underway in NYC for over two centuries. Many of the assertions made as fact, are ill-supporter, POV contentions. Seems tp be an attempt to use WP as political propaganda.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
San Francisco housing shortage could provide a model for an article. Note, for example, that it provided a start date for the shortage. This article, mere PROMO for the housing policies of the current Mayor, (lede: "To address the problem, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio launched an initiative called Housing New York to create or preserve 300,000 affordable housing units by 2026.")needs to be blown up and stated again.DeleteE.M.Gregory (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thats more WP:RECENTISM then it is WP:PROMO, which stems from the article's focus on the current state of housing in NYC. A rewrite into a more general article will help that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem is that the article is framed to present a specific political perspective: the assertion that there is a New York "housing crisis". Most Wikipedia editors probably cannot afford to live in Palo Alto, Palm Beach, Beverly Hills, Brooklyn Heights, SoHo, Greenwich Village or the Upper East Side. This does not constitute a "housing crisis." It is evidence that some locations are extremely expensive. And, as her, it can also be the basis for arguing in favor of policies to create housing for specific groups of people (this "housing crisis" is a tool to promote subsidized housing for low-income families. In other worlds,this is not a "crisis," it is a political proposal.) The New York "housing crisis" is a political concept, invented to promote specific policies favored by the current mayor. This article simply echoes and PROMOTES a very specific political position.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This article blatantly fails NPOV. An article more like San Francisco housing shortage should be possible. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an NPOV article. It all begins with a tendentious title. Agree that a neutral approach to the subject would begin by starting from an article Housing in New York City to begin with. Nuke from orbit and start from scratch; it's the only way to be sure. XavierItzm (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this page started on Nov 13 by User:Seahawk01 and that the editor worked on it regularly until it was bad enough for User:Drewmutt to tag it ESSAY [57]. Seahawk01 promptly removed the tag, and User:John from Idegon soon PRODDED it.[58]. The moves in and out of draft space are documented above. But also Note that article creator Seahawk writes above that: "I was in the middle of working on it... I was fully intending to add more sources, write more text, etc over the next few days, but all work was stopped." He has not, however, worked to improve the page during this discussion. Instead, he has spent considerable time during this AfD on the talk pages of multiple editors claiming not to have time to edit.[59], and arguing about stuff [60], [61], [62], [63], and making complaints, demands, and proposals [64], [65].E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per G3. (non-admin closure) Sheldybett (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic (band)[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This article is a blatant hoax under the G3. Sheldybett (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any evidence of this band at all. Not sure if it qualifies as a blatant hoax though. The name makes searches near impossible so it could be real, just difficult to find. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 00:48, 12 December 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William D. McHenry[edit]

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

Non-notable football player and coach. No NFL experience or Division I coaching experience. Fbdave (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of sources on subject at Newspapers.com. Subject is notable. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Two newspaper articles over a number of years covering as a coach just about satisfies WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like ample coverage to pass WP:GNG, which is what we typically find with a head coach at the college level.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This (From my studying of the guideline and looking into the page's links) clears WP:GNG, so there isn't a big reason to delete the article in my opinion. Charizard200 (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator: WP:NCOLLATH states that "College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage." Are the two newspaper articles when he was hired as a head coach more than routine coverage?

If you search Newspapers.com, you'll find extensive coverage of McHenry. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to meet WP:GNG, per the coverage in the article and online. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Delete I can't find any sources which actually cover him significantly. The articles in the article are transactional blurbs you'd see for any small-town athletic director or football coach. A Newspapers.com before search brought up hyper-local articles about his speech to a Lebanon rotary club, a mention in someone else's obituary, a car accident in eastern Ohio which might not be the same Bill McHenry, a mention of his attendance at a banquet for little leaguers in Lebanon, a couple mentions in a game recap about lacrosse, three brief mentions in an article about the upcoming football season, et cetera, and a number of false positives. If someone posts sources which actually cover him significantly I'm happy to take another look, but the sourcing in the article and that I've been able to find is routine, doesn't cover him significantly, and therefore doesn't meet WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 19:54, 17 December 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 Military of the Falkland Islands#Commanders. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commander British Forces South Atlantic Islands[edit]

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

Poorly referenced, unnecessary fork of a section of Military of the Falkland Islands. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Military of the Falkland Islands#Commanders (eg: see targetting of Gordon Moulds#Commander British Forces South Atlantic Islands or the currently unlinked use at RAF Ascension Island) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is notable and can be improved and expanded. Sammartinlai (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Hydro. The only information about the role amounts to "primary commanding officer of the British Forces Falkland Islands", "oversees 1350 personnel" and the name of the current Commander – all of which is covered in Military of the Falkland Islands. – Teratix ₵ 12:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect is fine with me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Hydro. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Military of the Falkland Islands#Commanders. Article could be possibly expanded and spun-off, however at present form it is an unnecessary fork. Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as others have suggested. The target would be better called Military in the Falkland Islands, since they are British Forces, not native ones. Better still would be Armed Forces in the Falkland Islands, since in British English military refers only to soldiers, not Navy or Air Force. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment should we not move Military of the Falkland Islands to British Forces South Atlantic Islands as per the Milhist most-current-name rule and Br:E for 'forces' rather than 'military'? Buckshot06 (talk) 14:30, 15 December 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) Ifnord (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Shvut Rachel shooting[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2015 Shuvat Rachel shooting

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

WP:NOTNEWS - there are a large number of articles that were created in the immediate aftermath of some attack or shooting in the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and many of them were nominated for deletion at the time on the basis that these are news stories, not encyclopedia articles, and that there was no demonstration of any lasting impact. I think time has proven that to be correct, as there is no serious argument to be made that this shooting had any lasting impact or that serious sources note it. In 2015, Chicago had 2500 people shot, 470 homicides. AFAIK there are exactly 0 articles on any of them. Because they are, for the most part, news stories, and not encyclopedia articles. As is the case here. Nableezy 01:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per extensive coverage, good sourcing. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies as well, of course other shooting etc happens but that is also why this one is notable. As stated by the nominator most shootings get little or no coverage, this one has plenty for a reason. I mostly though fail to see what shootings in Chicago got to do with an incident in Israel. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a deadly and significant terrorist attack.WaterwaysGuy (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)_{Editor not allowed to comment here per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30}[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Keep. Not a valid nomination (WP:OSE) - certainly there are non-notable shootings (in Chicago and in the West Bank) - however there are also notable ones (in the West Bank, and yes, even in Chicago - e.g. Murder of Laquan McDonald). In this particular instance we have WP:SIGCOV which is WP:SUSTAINED - both in context of this case, and in relation to wider events in the period.Sep 2017, Jan 2017, Feb 2016, Feb 2018, July 2018, June 2018 (and plenty more in the article - well and above what's needed for WP:NCRIME). Icewhiz (talk) 12:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry, what? I cited WP:NOTNEWS as the rationale. If you think this compares Laquan McDonald, well then I dont know what to tell you. But you have written elsewhere that newspapers are WP:PRIMARY, do you have any significant coverage in secondary sources? nableezy - 16:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck speedy seeing you cited NOTNEWS - does not apply, as terrorist attacks are not routine events. News reporting, can, indeed be considered PRIMARY if close to the event. However, in this case, we have WP:SUSTAINED reporting - examples of which I pointed out above (had coverage been limited to 2015 - I would have !voted differently, however in this case we have extended coverage - including I would add some mentions in journal articles - e.g. Eiran, Ehud, and Peter Krause. "Old (Molotov) cocktails in new bottles?“Price-tag” and settler violence in Israel and the West Bank." Terrorism and political violence 30.4 (2018): 637-657.). Icewhiz (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions are significant coverage? nableezy - 16:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the articles I linked to above are full-length features on this event. Icewhiz (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Nableezy 16:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from the arguments provided by my predecessors, who and which I agree with, I am a little worried about the nomination for deletion on 4 articles from Category:Palestinian terrorism by one and the same editor, whose POV is well-known. Debresser (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 23:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NCRIME, WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - echoing the above arguments, the subsequent coverage in the context of prisoner exchanges and the related access crackdowns suggest this had more notability than other tragic ongoing shootings. I did remove a section that seemed to be trying to bolster this shooting's notability by claiming causation of Ramadan crackdowns, but the sources didn't seem to show a direct correlation between the crackdowns and this event. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:07, 17 December 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. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard D. Feinman[edit]

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

Finding lots of self-promotion and interviews but little or nothing independent about him. E Eng 01:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN per Xxxaaaannnttthhhiiipppeee. My mistake. E Eng 04:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self promotional bio. Just spent a while looking, serious lack of reliable sources that mention him. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 20 papers with over 100 cites each in GS passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
If you're sure of that I'll withdraw the nomination. E Eng 02:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My basis was this [66], which I assume were his. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Weak keep, although we may be better off blowing it up and starting over. The article needs some serious work, but it does appear to satisfy WP:PROF. Brad v🍁 02:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF as explained in the votes above. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:26, 11 December 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.