Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 6 December 8 December >

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 keep. Seems a clear consensus (including a change of nom's opinion) that with the additional edits and found sources that notability is now satisfied. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Panth Maharaj[edit]

Panth Maharaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable yogi, does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Of the three provided sources, one is a book, and the other two are non-reliable websites. The book, Avadhuta Yogi Pant Maharaj of Balekundari (1994) by Indira Kher, does not appear to be itself notable (and even includes in its description that Panth Maharaj was not among the well known [saints from Maharashtra]). My WP:BEFORE search did not turn up any mentions in reliable sources. signed, Rosguill talk 21:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Spiderone 08:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with Balekundri (B.K.). Searching under various combinations of his names, and various English spellings (eg Sri Pant, etc), I have found some other English-language sources, though they would probably also be regarded as mostly unreliable (I'm not sure what reliable sources for Indian saints would be). As well as the biography already included in the article, there is a thesis in Marathi, 'Shri Pant Maharaj balekundarimkar charitra aani vangmay'[1]. Two websites associated with Sai Baba of Shirdi contain much more biographical information about Shri Panth Maharaj: 'Shri Pant Maharaj As A Householder, Family Man And A Strict Disciplinarian' [2], 'PANCHAMUKHI SADGURU SHRI PANT MAHARAJ AS A TEACHER' [3]. A website with information about Dattatreya traditions includes the 'Avadhut Panth tradition' [4], with information about his main disciples. Some of his devotional hymns have been set to music and published: AARTI SANGRAH [5]. A 'Memorial of Swami Vivekananda to be restored in Belagavi' [6] will have in one gallery "scripts of conversation along with five eminent personalities Vivekananda met in the building", including Pant Maharaj of Balekundri. English-language press has published notices of celebrations of his life: 'Pant Maharaj's anniversary'[7] and 'Pant Maharaj's death centenary from Tuesday' [8], and coverage of the festivals, including this year's: 'Thousands attend Balekundri fair: Special prayers and rituals were performed at the end of the procession. Bhajans and keertans were sung by the devotees all day.' [9]. One of the websites which has a biography also has a list of Literature by and about him, in various languages including Marathi, Hindi, Gujarathi and Kannada: 13 are listed apart from the English-language biography already included as a source [10]. I think all that is enough to show that he is notable, however, if others disagree, the information about Panth Maharaj should be merged into the article about the village where he lived, and where his temple stands, with some of these sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RebeccaGreen's research. While several of those don't appear reliable, the New Indian Express coverage in particular sways my opinion toward thinking that this subject is notable. I would withdraw the nomination, but another editor has already voted delete, so the discussion will continue until it's time for normal close procedures. signed, Rosguill talk 20:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am actively working on improving this article including adding more notable sources, particularly offline ones. Most of the most notable sources are either not in English and instead are in Marathi or Kannada, including a few in Hindi and Gujarati and largely offline and out of print. I will be adding these to the further reading in the near future. He is a very notable saint in the region, but his followers are largely regional, and villagers, who are not proficient in English in large part, which is why there is a dearth of press and news material about him. A YouTube search for his name will give you a sense of his following. Many events attract thousands of devotees as seen in this video. He is most notable for his contribution to a sampradaya for Dattatreya -- see [11]. I do not feel it would be correct to merge this profile into the village where he lived. Though he is one of the most notable people to have lived in the village, he is not synonymous with the village. However, I feel he should be removed from the disambiguation page for Balekundri_(B.K.) because he is never referred by the name of his village though at times he is referred to with his last name as Balekundrikar. Lastly, I was able to find one more notable source on Google Books here[12] and [13] where there is an entire chapter dedicated to Pant Maharaj alongside 21 other notable individuals including Jawaharlal Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi, Sathya Sai baba, Rajiv Gandhi, K M Munshi, Acharya Vinoba Bhave, Lal Bahadur Shastri, and Morarji Desai LovaLova talk 06:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RebeccaGreen's and nom User:Rosguill who has now changed his opinion. My own personal search also gave me similar results that even after a century of after his death the subject is still getting covered in reliable media such as Times of India, Indian Express. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:48, 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 delete. Michig (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Neff[edit]

Ray Neff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability guidelines for academics. Libertybison (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:25, 7 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 Kashmir (disambiguation)#Kashmir region. Not surprisingly, this is a topic which engenders much debate. Some people did point out that "Pakistan administered Kashmir" is a term that's used in many WP:RS, and is apparently the term used by the United Nations. However, most people here felt that this article was a WP:POVFORK, and as such did not merit a stand-alone article. I didn't see any arguments on either side which were so obviously invalid that they should be ignored, so the weight of numbers ruled the day here. Depending on how you count some of the more nuanced comments, things are running about 2:1 against keeping.

Worth noting is that there's been long-term disagreement about the use of "controlled" vs "occupied" vs "administered". They all have similar meanings, but with subtle differences in tone. It's unlikely there will ever been complete agreement on which is the best word to describe the current situation.

Even amongst the people arguing to delete, I get the impression that they'd be OK with going back to the way things used to be, i.e. a redirect. There's no real consensus on what the best redirect target would be, so I've gone with the most recent redirect before this was expanded into a full article on 7 December 2018. I will leave it up to other editors to modify the target as a normal part of editorial discretion, but for now it will remain a redirect. I only ask that people try to reach consensus on any redirect changes through discussion rather than through edit-warring. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan administered Kashmir[edit]

Pakistan administered Kashmir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a content fork of Kashmir conflict, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, created on a less popular redirect. This is only a term used for referring two of the states (Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan) that are administered by Pakistan. "Azad Kashmir" and "Gilgit-Baltistan" are separate from each other as political units. There should be no need to create an article which treats them as same.

The more popular redirect is Pakistan-administered Kashmir and has significant talk page history on its talk page Talk:Pakistan-administered Kashmir. According to that talk page, a similar article was turned into redirect before after this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan occupied Kashmir. Qualitist (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I am the creator of the article and this geo article is at AfD only because the nominator seems to have issues with me and is hounding me everywhere. As for the Article, "Pakistan administered Kashmir" is the term by which UN refers to this area of Azad Kashmir + Gilgit Baltistan.[1] And this is the term by which the neutral international mainstream media refers this geographical entity,[2] "Pakistani controlled Kashmir" is the other widely used term for the same Geo area.[3] Indian mainstream media calls this exact territory as Pakistan occupied Kashmir. The subject is the title of several books.[4][5][6][7][8] Some sources, for the notability of this Geo Article are[9][10]--DBigXrayᗙ 19:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "United Nations urges inquiry into human rights violations in Kashmir". 14 June 2018 – via www.reuters.com.
  2. ^ "Kashmir profile". 3 October 2017 – via www.bbc.com.
  3. ^ CNN: Kashmir Fast Facts
  4. ^ Gupta, Virendra; Bansal, Alok; Analyses, Institute for Defence Studies and (7 December 2018). "Pakistan Occupied Kashmir: The Untold Story". Manas Publications – via Google Books.
  5. ^ Singh, Jasjit (7 December 1995). "Pakistan Occupied Kashmir Under the Jackboot". Siddhi Books – via Google Books.
  6. ^ Alam, Mohammad Monir; Bali, Ajeet Kumar (7 December 2018). "Pakistan Occupied Kashmir: Constitutional Status and Political Reality". Lancer's Books – via Google Books.
  7. ^ Puri, Luv (7 December 2018). "Across the Line of Control: Inside Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir". Hurst & Company – via Google Books.
  8. ^ Zakaria, Anam (7 August 2018). "Between the Great Divide: A Journey into Pakistan-Administered Kashmir". Harper Collins – via Google Books.
  9. ^ Choudhry, Dr Shabir (26 September 2013). "Kashmir Dispute: A Kashmiri Perspective - Kashmiri Struggle Transformed in to Jihad, Terrorism and a Proxy War". AuthorHouse – via Google Books.
  10. ^ Haines, Daniel (15 February 2018). "Indus Divided: India, Pakistan and the River Basin Dispute". Penguin Random House India Private Limited – via Google Books.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 20:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 20:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 20:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 20:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 20:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
see WP:OSE, Also your comparison is flawed. Not sure if you are aware of it or not, but in any case and for the help of others let me clarify this straight.
  1. Jammu and Kashmir is the geographical entity that represents Indian administered Kashmir hence the redirect Indian administered Kashmir points to Jammu and Kashmir.
  2. Pakistan administered Kashmir internationally refers to the combined geographical entity of "Azad Kashmir + Gilgit-Baltistan", the two parts of Kashmir.
It is fallacious to redirect Pakistan administered Kashmir to Azad Kashmir since they are not the same entities. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This seems to be one of the good old India-Pakistan bugbears, one side arguing for the article and the other side against. On rational grounds, "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" is a well-attested term, covered in reliable sources. For example, this recent scholarly book[1] has a section on Pakistan-administered Kashmir and 20+ other occurrences.
    • Kashmir has an obvious international dimension to it, and internationally Pakistan-administered Kashmir is one unit even if Pakistan were to administer it internally as two separate provinces. There is in fact a single ministry in the central government that deals with both of them.
    • As to what this article might cover other than what is covered in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan articles, I expect that it would focus on the "Pakistan-administered" aspect: why Pakistan administers it and how Pakistan administers it. A certain amount of overlap with the other articles is inevitable.
Perhaps all these issues should have been discussed on the article talk page rather than in a rushed AfD. The nom was apparently advised to do so. The previous AfD that the nom points to is entirely irrelevant, because its decision was to redirect "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir" precisely to this article! So, if anything, the previous AfD assumed the existence of this article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Snedden, Christopher (2015), Understanding Kashmir and Kashmiris, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-1-84904-342-7
Redirect to what ? which "multiple" RFCs are you referring to ? the links you gave are only of local discussions. The only widely held discussion was previous AfD which was closed as a redirect to Pakistan-administered Kashmir which was an article at that time.
The POVFORK argument held true for "Pakistan occupied Kashmir". Pakistan administered Kashmir is the neutral term by which this geographic entity is referred internationally, so it begs to question whose POV is it ? --DBigXrayᗙ 14:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The same rebutted argument is being repeated again. The geographic entity Pakistan administered Kashmir refers to Azad Kashmir "and" Gilgit Baltistan. redirecting it to Azad Kashmir is not only inappropriate but factually wrong. The Geo article is on a subject that is different from the subject of the three articles You have listed. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Move to Pakistan occupied Kashmir. I performed Google searches and following are the results (which basically sums-up the situation).
1) Google Books:
2) Google:
It is very evident that the term for the territory always has been Pakistan occupied Kashmir; hence the article should be redirected moved accordingly. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using google counts to find a POV free title amongst sources that are likely to be intrinsically POV is fraught with problems. Given the relative sizes of populations in India and Pakistan, one would expect the difference in result numbers to be even greater. The fact that it isn't speaks against your argument. At the very least, it shows these statistics are useless. SpinningSpark 11:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arun We are here discussing if the article needs to be kept or deleted. if you want the title to be changed, then the procedure to do that will be to start a WP:RM discussion on the talk page, after this article is kept. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DBigXray is right that prior to this article being created Pakistan-administered Kashmir was being redirected to Azad Kashmir. That was done in 2012, when most of the present editors weren't around. The edit summary says "per talk", but the talk page discussion was a mess. It was WP:OR and factually wrong, because the reliable source I gave above [14] clearly shows both Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan being parts of "Pakistan-administered Kashmir". The old redirect is not acceptable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should read other pages of your linked source which reads the term ("Pakistan occupied Kashmir" aka "Pakistan-administered Kashmir") is used "in three ways" by Indians.[15] One of that "way" includes the reference of "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" as "Azad Kashmir", like your source reads. It creates confusion that which region is being referred when you are using this term and that is what the source reads. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the logic. If Indians misuse terms in a certain way, Wikipedia should misuse them too?!? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I accept that the old redirect had a rationale (the Indian abuse of terminology). However, the present discussion is regarding a full article on the real Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Some folks here have commented that the new article is not needed because the old redirect was good enough. That argument isn't valid, because the criteria for the presence of redirects and that for articles are entirely different. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because its mostly content copied from other articles. It is nothing but content duplication. No such geographic or political entity exists. Its only a term that can satisfactorily be described in some other article. The Donkey King (talk) 13:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
reliable sources such as the CNN and BBC show with pics that this geographic entity exists. Regarding the political entity, please note that Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit-Baltistan looks upon affairs of Azad Kashmir and Gilglit Baltistan. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit-Baltistan and it makes no sense to treat it as Ministry of Pakistan administered Kashmir, like you are doing. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are misrepresenting me, My point is, Even Pakistani Federal government has a seperate Ministry to look into the affairs of the geographic entity that is known as "Pakistan Administered Kashmir". Obviously Pakistani Federal government doesn't need to worry about wikipedias rule of WP:COMMONNAME and neutrality to decide what it is going to call this ministry and they can call their ministry whatever they want. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or restore redirect - Per nom and my comment above. Only issue should be that where this article should redirect. The last stable version which redirected to Azad Kashmir was not without merit since numerous scholarly sources don't mention Gilgit-Baltistan and say "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" means "Azad Kashmir".[16][17][18][19] There is no clear scope of the subject since "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" is also referred as "Azad Kashmir" by sources, and mention of Gilgit-Baltistan is excluded. In addition to this serious problem, this article cannot be written without copy pasting content from Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir to here, or adding content which actually belongs to those two article. WP:POVFORK applies here. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary to your claim above, our article Azad Kashmir does not claim that Azad Kashmir includes, "Gilgit Baltistan". You should check out the refs in that article once again. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt talked about what is written on our article of Azad Kashmir so your comment is a red herring. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you would care to check, what the Pakistan Government mentions as Azad Kashmir (check this map) on their official website gov.pk, and notice the contradiction to your statement there as well, they don't include Gilgit Baltistan in Azad Kashmir. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all scholarly sources are well-informed about the situation, and for good reasons. Until 1990s, Pakistan did not even reveal that Gilgit-Baltistan had been irrevocably separated from Azad Kashmir. (See the Karachi Agreement page.) In her well-regarded book,[1] scholar Navnita Chadha Behera comments that these mountainous regions had been "enveloped in multiple and overwhelming silences". So, you cannot use the fact that there are some ill-informed sources as a justification for propagating the same kind of ill-information here. And, I wonder if blocking an article from being written here is also a contribution to these silences.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moreover, your sources appear to be random Google hits, without any effort to check their reliability. One is out of date (from 1968) [20], another a footnote in a paper on computational modelling [21], the third an article from a "Business Review" [22] and the fourth a working paper that is not peer-reviewed [23]. All they show is that some reasonable sources continue to use the out-of-date terminology. They cannot contradict the in-depth sources like Snedden and Behera or other sources that DBigXray has provided. Please pay attention to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Behera, Navnita Chadha (2007), Demystifying Kashmir, Pearson Education India, p. 170, ISBN 8131708462


  • Comment
References to verify the images above:
Let us look at the maps of the terms being used here. Clearly one can see that the geographical area known by the world as Pakistan administered Kashmir is not the same as what is known as Azad Kashmir. And this article is neither a POVFORK nor a redundant duplicate of Azad Kashmir. As some of the folks have suggested above, this article should stay at its own location. Any suggestion to redirect Pakistan administered Kashmir to Azad Kashmir is not based on facts.--DBigXrayᗙ 21:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a poorly created redundant WP:POVFORK. All of the sources mentioned above (with some not even mentioning the term) seems to be verifying that we can't create more than a couple of sentences of the article. This is already covered in the 3 named articles by the nominator and also covered on Kashmir. Why we have to fork content to create more 100s of articles? I would at least support restoring redirect of the version of 2017.[24] --Umar shahid (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Perhaps it is better to create a DAB page pointing to both GB and AJK. For Indian-administered Kashmir it clearly refers to JK but Pakistan-administered Kashmir can refer to both or either territories. I was a bit confused as to what Pakistan-administered Kashmir refers to especially due to the notes [1]/[2] placed on both AJK and JK articles but no notes regarding the same on the GB article. (Seeing this a similar note should probably be added there.). Gotitbro (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a "both or either" situation. Please check the sources presented above. Since the beginning of the Kashmir dispute, the entire area of Kashmir under Pakistani control is called "Pakistan administered Kashmir", Pakistan have renamed the regions several times, which may have confused some, but the definition of this geographic entity of "Pakistan administered Kashmir" has never changed for the international mainstream media and the UN and it includes both territories AK and GB [25]. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant fork created without consensus. Isn't  Pakistan-administered Kashmir the right word? Anyway, the subject is already described enough times in numerous articles that we dont need this page. Wikipedia is certainly not to be used for advancing nationalist POV. Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please clarify which existing article is redundant to Pakistan administered Kashmir. IMHO Pakistan-administered Kashmir may or may not be a better title, but WP:AfD is not the place to discuss a better title, WP:RM is the place. You state "numerous articles" but haven't listed even one. This term is used internationally by neutral mainstream media and the UN, so whose POV are you referring to ? As power~enwiki has mentioned above with an example, it is common for Geographic articles to have some overlap if there are common territories, that doesn't make the article redundant and fit for deletion.--DBigXrayᗙ 09:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you didn't know about the accurate title for the subject, yet you created this article against consensus. Sources refers the regions separately. They only mention "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" when they are talking about territorial disputes between India and Pakistan or things related to the conflict and at the same time they also give details about "Indian-administered Kashmir".[26][27][28] This includes sources from mainstream media and the UN which you have linked.  Now we can't preserve a "Pakistan administered Kashmir" while avoid creating Indian-administered Kashmir, because we are not here for advancing nationalist POV. We don't need articles on both subjects since they have been already described enough times in numerous articles. Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please read your first comment above, you said this is a "redundant fork" without mentioning redundant fork of "which existing article". When I asked you to clarify your comment you are skirting my question. This is offtopic but you should know that an article for the geographic entity known as Indian-administered Kashmir already exists. If you want to rename that existing article please start a WP:RM discussion to rename that to something else. As you might know already, (since you could not find one, to answer my question), there is no Geographic article about the geographic entity known as Pakistan administered Kashmir other than the one that I have created. So instead of arguing about what I have done and not done, we should be discussing about why this article should be kept or deleted since we are already at AfD now. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I ignored that pointless question because nearly a dozen of editors have already named the articles like Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan, Azad Kashmir, Kashmir conflict and others from where you have forked the content for creating the article and you have also admitted the same.[29] Indian-administered Kashmir is a redirect and we also have articles "for the geographic entity known as" Pakistan-administered Kashmir, that is why you don't need a redundant fork. Credible sources provide same treatment to both Indian-administered Kashmir and Pakistan-administered Kashmir and same  has been done on Wikipedia until turned redirect into an article page without consensus. I am recommending you to stop replying only for the sake of replying. Better read and think whenever you decide to reply and in this case you don't have to reply every single time because you are just worsening your weak argument by repeating it tirelessly. Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The geographic entity Pakistan-administered Kashmir is not the same as the geographic entity of Kashmir or Gilgit-Baltistan or Azad Kashmir. Each of them has its own different map, which is different from the other. So no, this is not a "redundant" article but a geographic article representing a unique geographic entity. and FYI,  Pakistan-administered Kashmir had existed before at that location and that article was removed without a wider discussion. So again, instead of discussing about what was done and what was not done, it will help the AfD if we keep our arguements focussed on for or against the notability of this article in question.--DBigXrayᗙ 16:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to maybe Kashmir#Current_status_and_political_divisions. The terms Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Indian-administered Kashmir are both standard neutral terms. The best place to explain this is the main Kashmir article (it is briefly mentioned in the introduction). My suggestion would be to keep this as a redirect and explain the terms in the main article where the context is provided. This avoid too much fragmentation and yet preserves the information.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- possibly renamed. Kashmir is de facto partitioned between India and Pakistan. Whether the two halves are "administered", "occupied", or "controlled" is a matter of POV - whether the speaker has an Indian or Pakistani POV. There is no formal border, only a cease-fire line or line of control. WP needs to find a NPOV term. How about Pakistani Kashmir? This avoids the question of which verb to use. Merging or redirecting is not an option, since it covers both Gilgit-Baltistan or Azad Kashmir. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I thought a DAB page would be fine but after seeing the discussion at Talk:Pakistan-administered Kashmir seems like it would be incorrect as that indicates ambiguity exists when it doesn't (the term refers to both the territories). The article was previously unanimously disambiguated then without clear consensus redirected to Kashmir.

    A redirect won't suffice as well, a broad target such a Kashmir isn't correct, DAB fails and an article which covers Kashmir under Pakistan is needed here. (While Jammu and Kashmir and Aksai Chin both cover histories of the region under their respective countries no such article is there for Pakistan.) Also, I fail to see what is POV or POVFORK here the term is a widely used neutral one and the article simply covers the administration of the region. Gotitbro (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir already cover content about Pakistan's Kashmir. Nothing new appears to be discussed on this article. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir articles represent different geographic entities than Pakistan administered Kashmir. it is irrational to treat all these articles as same. See my comments below for more. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect: Per WP:POVFORK, since nothing here can be described in more than one or two sentences which has been already detailed on other articles like Kashmir. Scope is dubious like Shiv Sahil notes since the term can mean both Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan or only Azad Kashmir. In reliable sources, the use of "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" term is similar to that of "Indian-administered Kashmir" like Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari describes and that is why we can't just create a "Pakistani-administered Kashmir" against long term consensus[30] while avoiding the creation of an Indian-administered Kashmir page. In any case, such articles cannot be created without mass content forking and that is clearly against our policies. There is clearly nothing new for us to describe here that hasn't been already described elsewhere. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. WP:POVFORK talks about both article on the "same subject". There is "no other article" for the same subject (geographical entity). It is quite obvious from the maps itself (see above) that the geographic entities of Pakistan administered Kashmir are not the same as either Azad Kashmir or Gilgit-Baltistan.
  2. If there was an existing Pakistan administered Kashmir and then someone created another article at "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" then one could have argued that its a POV FORK, but with only 1 existing article for the subject you cannot claim WP:FORK, let alone WP:POVFORK
  3. Long term consensus was to keep this article at location Pakistan-administered Kashmir where it existed from 2004 [31], till 2012 [32] when the article was unilaterally merged into separate articles without a wider consensus at AfD.
  4. Regarding the point of "nothing new here", note that this geographic entity is federally administered by Government of Pakistan's Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit-Baltistan. The United Nations and the international media refer to this entire region as Pakistan administered Kashmir, so this article can discuss the history, administration and geography of this geographic entity.--DBigXrayᗙ 12:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect per nom, Shiv Sahil and Syed Zain. Completely unnecessary to create another article only for repeating what we already have repeated around. These kinds of creations do not help encyclopedia but encourage more WP:POVFORKs. Srkamal (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Srkamal, you posted here on the talk page of this article, opposing merger and saying that "Yes, it should continue to be a separate article" and now you have made a complete volte face here, can you clarify why ? The points that you raised area already discussed above. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:40, 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. Tone 16:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shinamo Moki[edit]

Shinamo Moki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBAND. No claim of notability within the article, could be promotional. WP:BEFORE failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and my Google searches revealed no RSes to support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing in the article suggests notability of any kind, and a search didn't reveal anything useful, therefore fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 12:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Searches turned up nothing reliable. Agreed it appears a bit promotional. DeniedClub❯❯❯ talk? 09:04, 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. Tone 16:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Child[edit]

Dream Child (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. I could find nothing to show that this film has actually been released. A post on the film's facebook page dating from October [33] says it is an upcoming film. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment reference 2 seems to be a review from April? thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is but it is only reviewing the trailer that was released and not the film. It says "Zamaradi Productions and Athari Films have recently released the official trailer of their film..." Dom from Paris (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No !votes besides nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly fails WP:NFILM. If it becomes notable in future then we shall recreate the page. Qualitist (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One source was a dead link for me; the second is self-published (its facebook page); the last is a blogger platform and not reliable. No grounds to presume notability. AGK ■ 22:00, 10 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. Tone 16:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one singles of 2010 (Luxembourg)[edit]

List of number-one singles of 2010 (Luxembourg) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also nominating the following related lists:

List of number-one singles of 2011 (Luxembourg) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one singles of 2012 (Luxembourg) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one singles of 2013 (Luxembourg) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of number-one singles of 2014 (Luxembourg) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lists of number ones for a chart which doesn't receive coverage in third-party sources. Published by Billboard, a primary source, based on digital sales, and the only place where this information will be found. No relevance given to the chart itself and no significance given for reaching number one on it. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the country is so small that residents listen to stations from neighboring countries shop for music elsewhere too. This is just a silly exercise in tracking. Legacypac (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - lack of secondary sources Spiderone 19:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is just a relist of billboard charts with no secondary sources. As Legacypac stated, it is unnecessary tracking. DeniedClub❯❯❯ talk? 09:26, 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. Tone 16:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CellFactor: Combat Training[edit]

CellFactor: Combat Training (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Literally zero coverage found on this, no Metacritic page as well. Even the release date is not a full one! Surprised to see a 11 year old unreferenced stub on Wikipedia, but here we are. Completely fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No references are in the article and I can't find any significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No references, and Google searches yield no RSes. From what I can find this game was actually a technical demo available to people with a PhysX capable GPU. It had a pretty bare-bones multiplayer and local offline with bots on a single map. In 2006 very few people would have been able to afford such a video card so this demo quickly faded into obscurity and has almost no coverage apart from a few YouTube videos and a handful of forum posts. That said I believe it fails WP:NVIDEOGAMES and while interesting, doesn't merit an article of its own. DeniedClub❯❯❯ talk? 12:35, 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. Tone 16:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dance! Online[edit]

Dance! Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not able to find anything that is a reliable secondary in BEFORE search (all primary or passing in the article) review or covering this in detail, fails WP:GNG. Has issues since 7 years ago. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is quite a google unfriendly game - is this the same as "super dancer online" (Which shows up in a few places, to the point that it would warrant its own article, but doesn't have an article under either "Super dancer" (unrelated) or "super dancer online" (not at all)? The review, for example, has it under a different name - which means that it's either wrong, or there is probably sufficient material to warrant Keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The wiki article itself says it is just based on Super Dancer Online, so it does seem they are not the same video game. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. All searches turned up passing references to release dates and a gaming wikia article that also has no reliable citation. It is based on the Chinese Super Dancer Online game, but is a different MMO made by Acclaim. Dance! Online is not covered enough to be meet the criteria for WP:GNG and WP:NVG. DeniedClub❯❯❯ talk? 12:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - since there seems a belief that it is a different game, then there definitely isn't sufficient sourcing to provide notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:06, 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 redirect to Italian Libya. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Italian North Africa[edit]

Italian North Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination only to generate broader discussion, in this, the appropriate forum, and thereby stop the redirection/recreation war once and for all. I have no opinion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Italian Libya, due to the lack of reliable sources that identify "Italian North Africa" as a distinct entity from "Italian Libya", the more common name for the territory. signed, Rosguill talk 18:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Rosguill. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maintain because there are reliable sources (books, like "La guerra in Libia e in Tunisia, 1940-1943" of Bruno Marin ---- "I 'Reparti speciali' italiani nella seconda guerra mondiale, 1940-1943" of Luigi Longo ---- Battistelli, Pier Paolo. "Italian Army Elite Units & Special Forces 1942-43" ---- Gray. Ezio. "Le nostre terre ritornano: Malta, Nizza, Corsica. Ed. De Agostini ---- Michele Brondino, tenth chapter of "La stampa italiana in Tunisia: storia e società, 1838-1956"; and additionally some essays in Italian, like Carlo Rastrelli, "Un esercito in camicia nera" in Storia Militare/June 2004). Furthermore we must remember that the article is a partial translation of an article in the Italian Wikipedia (it:Africa Settentrionale Italiana), that it is accepted there without problems since 2013. Finally, in Italian history books there are many references to the fact that existed two areas of the Italian empire in Africa: the Africa Orientale Italiana (AOI) and the Africa Settentrionale Italiana (ASI). So, why there it is no problem -FOR EXAMPLE- for the French Equatorial Africa and the French West Africa, while there it is all this mess with deletion/move for the Italian Africa?. Additionally I want to add these excepts from an Italian essay of a serious editor: …."12 Aprile 1937: Viene costituito il Comando Superiore FF.AA. dell' "Africa Settentrionale Italiana"; sono costituiti in Italia e inviati in Libia il XX Corpo d'Armata, con la 60^ Divisione Fanteria autotrasportabile "Sabratha", dislocata nel Garian, e la 61^ Divisione Fanteria autotrasportabile "Sirte", etc.../ April 12, 1937: It was created the Supreme Command FFAA of the "Italian North Africa"; are created in Italy and sent to Libya...etc...etc......" (from [[34]]).--5Pgcabi (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Striking vote by sock puppet account. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @5Pgcabi: you have named a lot of sources, but there is little indication of what they say. Please provide some direct quotes. The one quote you give at the end is about XX Corps being sent to Libya, so it is unclear that Africa Settentrionale Italiana refers to anything more than Libya. The acceptance of the article on Italian Wikipedia is neither here nor there as far as English Wikipedia is concerned. We each have our own criteria for inclusion. SpinningSpark 01:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is CLEARLY written "Africa Settentrionale Italiana" (ASI) meaning that there was Supreme Command for the Italian Forces in "Italian North Africa", according to the serious editor of "Militaria". I showed the exact words because it is a CLEAR proof of the existence of the "ASI". Of course this was related to all the Italian possessions in north Africa, that only in 1934 were united in the so called "Libya"...and that later were used for the occupied territories in Tunisia in 1942 (also for administrative issues related to the Tunisia population). For example, here it is a document showing a 1942 letter with stamped on it "COMANDO SUPERIORE FORZE ARMATE AFRICA SETTENTRIONALE" [[35]], but the precise words ASI are usually found only when Tunisia was conquered....and it is a very brief period of time, with no easy documentation to be found. --5Pgcabi (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of a military supreme command ASI does not prove that ASI exists as a political or administrative unit, or even as a common name for the Italian possessions in Africa. Compare, for instance, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe. Sure, the geographical entity "Europe" exists, but that is not the same as the boundaries of NATO. You are now trawling through primary documents to try and make your case. That says to me that you don't have a notable topic, even if your claims are correct. Primary sources are not convincing in the absence of secondary sources drawing conclusions from them. SpinningSpark 09:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a moment, SpinningSpark et al. I am adding CLEAR proof of the existence of the "Africa Settentrionale Italiana" in Italian books and essays. Here it is the page for the book of Gray Ezio. "Le nostre terre ritornano: Malta, Nizza, Corsica". Ed. De Agostini...:pg.32! The other books are in a public library and I have to find time to get the related page asap. I am also adding the serious "Militaria" reference and a copy of a letter [ http://www.mymilitaria.it/liste_03/lettera_nistri_ciano.htm ] with stamped "comando superiore forze armate Africa settentrionale" (may be you don't know that the Italian military never use the word "Italy and/or Italian" in their names because it is obvious to what they are related: so the full name should be "co..su..fo..ar..Africa settentrionale ITALIANA", and this is additional evidence of the existence of a military administrative unit! and in Wikipedia there are articles related to military administration, don't you remember?). Furthermore, the Italian occupation of Tunisia created for some months the need to administrate the conquered region, with Italian schools reopened for example. The problem is that it is a very brief period of time, with no easy documentation to be found, as I wrote....but I am searching also in the education data of Italy. What else do you want? A document signed by the same Mussolini creating the ASI?...WOW....Anyway, this matter is going too far and too away: sincerely, the smell of antiitalianism is very very very strong here! All this remembers me when I created years ago in en.wikipedia -with an IP in July 2007- the article "Italian conquest of British Somaliland": soon it was erased (by the "usual" British wikipedians who hate Italy in WW2) because classified "without encyclopedic importance"....but now the article -greatly improved by serious wikipedians- is accepted without problems. Anyway, do what you all want, I am out of all this mess for a small article. Sincerely,--5Pgcabi (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"What else do you want?" you ask. I want significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is a more onerous requirement than mere proof of existence. Nor is it anything to do with Anti-Italianism. The same standard is applied to all articles. Since the author of the article has declared they will provide no further evidence, then delete. SpinningSpark 16:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maintain. Same reasons of 5Pgcabi. More than half the coverage of wikipedia's articles is done with sources that are NOT independent of the subject. The evidences shown by the authors (I am the wife of one of them) are sufficient IMHO. And one evidence shows in a letter-photo the existence of a 'military administrative unit' with the name Africa Settentrionale (Italiana)! I am adding the text of a version of the article "Italian North Africa" to my weblog (https://adviceandresearch.blogspot.com/2018/12/italian-north-africa.html), with the consent of the authors. --LWife (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Striking vote by sock puppet account. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Italian Libya. I don't see sources treating the two as distinct. The borders of Italian Libya were in flux - but that's true of many historical entities. Perhaps if WWII ended differently the Italians would've organized their territory differently, but that did not happen. Icewhiz (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Italian Libya, and then protect the redirect from being reconstituted into an article. It is unclear to the exact distinction between the two terms, and the reader is best served if all iterations of the Italian presence in Northern Africa are contained in a single article.Onel5969 TT me 10:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously redirect per others, as there were no other Italian colonies there. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 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. Tone 16:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addeo Music International[edit]

Addeo Music International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Reads like an ad, so probably promotional. A lot of sources are primary sources or directly connected to the subject of the article. WP:BEFORE failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No referencesscope_creepTalk 17:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no independent secondary references that are better than mentions. Certainly insufficient to pass NCORP. No single obvious redirect target. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:35, 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 speedy delete. CSD G3, blatant hoax SpinningSpark 09:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Spring, 1st Baron Askeaton[edit]

Edward Spring, 1st Baron Askeaton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From ticket:2018120710004696:

Hi,

The profile of Edward Spring - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Spring,_1st_Baron_Askeaton - appears to be a fake.

The main source is given as Lodge and Archdall's work. This does not mention Edward Spring - https://archive.org/details/peerageirelando00archgoog/page/n30. Also: · Trinity College records do not mention this Edward Spring - https://digitalcollections.tcd.ie/home/index.php?DRIS_ID=LCN10378529_0003 Page 772

· The Blennerhassett Pedigree includes his supposed siblings but not him - https://archive.org/stream/selectionsfromol00hick#page/n109/mode/2up

· He is not in the Inner Temple database - http://www.innertemplearchives.org.uk/search.asp#name

· He wasn't MP for Askeaton, that was John Tunnadine who was elected in Aug 1768 - http://www.limerickcity.ie/media/politicians%2001.pdf, http://web.archive.org/web/20180825073908/http://www.leighrayment.com/commons/irelandcommons.htm, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jitdluWSybIC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=john+tunnadine.

· He wasn’t MP for Winchelsea - http://web.archive.org/web/20180722142411/http://www.leighrayment.com/commons/Wcommons4.htm

· He wasn’t High Sherriff of Limerick - http://www.askaboutireland.ie/aai-files/assets/libraries/limerick-city-library/reading-room/pages-in-history/list-of-the-mayors-and-sheriffs-of-the-citytitle-page.pdf#page=17

In short, possible hoax. talk to !dave 16:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am adding the following related pages because it was created at the same time by the same editor and is only documented by the same fraudulent citation.Agricolae (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Baron Askeaton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:HOAX definitely applies. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is certainly something fishy going on. The title Baron Askeaton was added to List of baronies in the Peerage of Ireland in May 2014 by User:LavenhamHistorian by simply copying the citation used for adjacent entries (valid for them, but there is no mention of Askeaton or Spring on the cited source page). I will WP:AGF and assume they added it by copying another entry and forgot to remove the citation, but this leaves me unsettled. The Peerage.com reference at least names the man, but the only citation given is a personal email sent a few months before this page was created, so I can't be sure there isn't some link to the creation of this page just a few months later. I am also going to add Baron Askeaton to this AfD, as it was created by the same User who created this page, User:SillyLizzie, at the same time and only cites the same Peerage of Ireland page that has nothing to do with this title or family. I think all of this editor's edits should be reviewed. Agricolae (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:F8D2:1EE7:484D:EC37 (talk) 22:51, 7 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 List of Canadian supercentenarians#Sum Ying Fung. Randykitty (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sum Ying Fung[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sum Ying Fung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Time for another AfD. Non-notable supercentenarian, receiving minor municipal recognition and a one-time shout out from the queen are basically all we have here. Maybe a minibio on the Canadian list, but certainly not enough for a full article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no all bios are not just normal life details. Notable bios are about people who accomplished something extra ordinary. I know quite a few people who have been mentioned in Vancouver press and don't warrent a Wikipedia article. Even the Vancouve rSun says she is claimed to be the oldest. Legacypac (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reaching a certain age is an lifetime accomplishment not 1 event. It is an achievement that takes over 110 years and because it is notable, reliable sources begin covering these people. This is how we determine notability here. In fact there are more billionaires than supercentenarians because to reach such age is more difficult and more notable than earning a billion in net worth. Rarely does NOPAGE applied because most sources do not just state there age, they question their lifestyle to determine how such longevity is achieved. It is only common sense to cover supercentenarians in fact we should have even more articles about them, but this history of deleting supercentenarians has been very destructive to Wikipedia. Valoem talk contrib 10:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete same reason as Nabi Tajima. Born, lived, "wow they've been alive for awhile", and that's it. Soft news. Someone should make a supercentenarian Wikia. MarkAQuinn (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC) • MarkAQuinn (contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. My position hasn't changed since the last AfD. There is enough coverage in reliable sources about this woman to justify having a standalone article. I'm not convinced by the "longetivity cruft" argument presented above: to say some reliably sourceable life details are inherently worth more notability than others is a systemic bias issue that we should avoid. Deryck C. 11:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Canadian supercentenarians#Sum Ying Fung, as performed by Cunard, with thanks. — JFG talk 12:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:Bio, specifically that her life was "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." I assert that extreme longevity passes that test. RS, as already laid out in the article, back up the claims made therein, causing this person to pass the GNG. schetm (talk) 08:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the nominator, Cunard's merge looks good to me. Much appreciated. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Cunard. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If one regards longevity records as no more notable than tiddlywink records, then the biographies of high scorers will seem trivial. But a sizeable minority of people (I confess I'm one) find the topic fascinating. Wikipedia would be poorer without them. --Davidcpearce (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. No other notability than surviving to an old age. Skirts89 (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Longevity is an accident, not an achievement. David notMD (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Canadian supercentenarians#Sum Ying Fung. Longevity may lead to notability, but in this case it led to WP:BIO1E coverage - a small spate of coverage in Canadian and Chinese outfits shortly before and after her death. Icewhiz (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see enough evidence of the type of sustained, in-depth coverage that would satisfy the requirements for a standalone page per WP:N. Anything of encyclopedic value can be included on one of the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 06:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Cunard. I don't believe old age immediately qualifies as being notable enough for a stand-alone page. All pertinent details look great in Cunard's merge. DeniedClub❯❯❯ talk? 22:26, 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 keep. Consensus is to Keep here, even the Weak Delete !vote said the article is well sourced. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tilly Smith[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tilly Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BLP1E. Ms Smith is notable for only one event, is an otherwise low profile individual, and even the event itself isn't that significant. Merge with main Tsunami article if preferred, but it certainly doesn't warrant an individual article about her. FirefoxLSD (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quoting BLPIE, "John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented." Saving the lives of 100 people in a tsunami is significant in itself. Furthermore Tilly Smith continues to be presented as a role model by, for example the United Nations (2011) and a book published by OUP (2009). Her role was significant not only for the event itself but by the inspiration it later gave others.[36][37][38] Notable both for news coverage of her role at the time and for much later use of her story to inspire others. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I have added more sources to the article, as well as moving 'Sources' to inline citations. Smith's story has been told in books and articles published in 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2016, and 2018 - at least. It is used to teach about types of natural disasters, disaster preparedness, and to advocate for the importance of teaching geography. She shows no signs of being forgotten 14 years after the disaster - her role at the time was significant for the 100 or so people saved, and she has since become a role model for education about disasters. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There isn't any doubt that the account is well sourced, but nevertheless this doesn't seem to be particularly notable, more than a decade after the event. Those sources don't add anything new to the account - they just retell the same event again and again. Even at the time, I recall that it was debated whether she actually saved 100 people, as opposed to giving the warning to a few, resulting in the evacuation. Firefox's claim that she isn't notable at all seems a little outlandish, but equally her notability was very much something of the time. Since then she has fallen into obscurity, and the newer news articles don't add anything. In two of the three sources Houseofchange lists, she is given a cursory mention: not enough to warrant notability.TeddyBiffles (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @TeddyBiffles:: Per WP:NOTTEMPORARY: "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Per WP:GNG "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The United Nations and Oxford University Press are independent and reliable sources. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Has anyone checked for Thai language sources on the subject? That may be relevant to this AfD. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, although I might be persuaded to redirect or merge to 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, neither of which involves AFD. I'm very unpersuaded by the thought that "the event itself isn't that significant" whether the event was the tsunami itself or Smith's taking action that may have saved a hundred lives. Without this the BLP1E conditions for deletion do not seem to be met. Thincat (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And if you check out 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, check out the link to our article on John Chroston, whose article has never been AfDed because why would you AfD an article about a hero who has a lot of news stories about him? Yes, OTHERSTUFF exists, but ask yourself if it has been worth Wikipedia's time and effort to mount three separate debates about Tilly Smith? This is the kind of discrepancy that gives us a bad reputation. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm pretty sure she is mentioned at the Science Museum which covers earthquakes and tsunamis. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sorry, but I don't believe the argument for deletion is convincing. Capt. Milokan (talk) 13:47, 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. Sandstein 21:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Duthie[edit]

Gordon Duthie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable musician, former references are old and broken / unavailable (are also press release / self driven) and no significant media coverage since article creation. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (music) Criteria for musicians and ensembles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C75:4F00:5163:2D53:93A:629A (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note IP requested AfD in WT:AFD. I am neutral in this AfD Hhkohh (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep this nomination is a result of a content dispute where the floating ip keeps trying to remove most of the content which they did again just before this nomination so this qualifies for WP:SPEEDYKEEP criteria 2d.
  • The article should not be slashed or deleted because the references are old or broken, they can be fixed using the internet archive and archive is. Of the working refs there is reliable sources coverage such as SCTV and several newspapers, passes WP:GNG, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the references in the article are working now such as altsounds, new reviews etc Atlantic306 (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:36, 7 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. Michig (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christa Ehrmann-Hämmerle[edit]

Christa Ehrmann-Hämmerle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Accomplished, but searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show notability. And she doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC either. Onel5969 TT me 14:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added the full name of the journal she is an editor of, as there is another, longer established journal called just L'Homme. The publisher's webpage is added not because I think it helps establish notability (it doesn't), but as a source of that information. So far, my search has revealed that Hämmerle is one of several editors of the journal, and does not have a chair at her university (both criteria that could establish notability if she was the only or chief editor, and held a named chair). I will search more before voting. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete She fails several criteria of WP:ACADEMIC by a narrow margin. Btw, I corrected the article: she is not a journal founder, but at most a co-founder. -- Oisguad (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added the prize she was awarded in 1999, and think this means she meets point 2 of WP:ACADEMIC. Tacyarg (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This prize is hardly a highly prestigious academic award. It is worth only 5000 €, it is given only to women, there are six awardees per year, it goes into narrowly defined fields, it goes mostly to Austria. If you are a woman working as a feminist historian in Austria, then it may be hard to avoid this prize. -- Oisguad (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • hmmmm, like the olympics, originally winners only received a wreath of olive leaves, participants could only be men, and there were numerous events held, note, showing the ridiculousness of above statement, i personally reckon all olympians are awesome. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which would be the other point she meets in your opinion? -- Oisguad (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, an article on Ehrmann-Hämmerle (with no problems) with more info about her has been on the german WP since 2014, see here, she is a recipient of the 1999 Kaethe Leichter Prize, thanks to Tacyarg for adding this info to the article, (should probably have its own wikipage) that contributes to her notability (WP:ANYBIO anyone?:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above in regards to German wiki. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - inclusion on another wiki is not a valid reason for inclusion. The award is, at best, borderline notable. Onel5969 TT me 00:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cautious Keep From looking at the German wiki equivalent entry there's clearly more to be added, and a brief googling session suggests there are additional online sources available, but people are unlikely to bother with that if the entry is threatened with deletion. Charles01 (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Searching on "Christa Hämmerle", the name that appears as author on books and articles, I find many reviews and citations of her work. I believe that she does meet WP:NACADEMIC #1, "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I have added some reviews to the article - more could be added, as well as more information about the areas of her research and its impact in the discipline. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:27, 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. Firm consensus that having been through an AfD with a Keep decision, there isn't a need to remove it purely on the grounds of being created by a sock. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PSKT Kemutar Telu West Sumbawa[edit]

AfDs for this article:
PSKT Kemutar Telu West Sumbawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was AFD'd in the past and the result was keep. Since then the main editing account EDP Sagittarius has been blocked as a sockpuppet and G5 would apply. Since the article had been AFD'd in the past, I have to bring it here. Kb03 (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as per G5. The Puppet master was blocked in January of this year and the article created in July by his sock. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have to go through a discussion because as per WP:CSD "When applicable, the following criteria may be used to delete pages that have survived their most recent deletion discussions: G5, creation by banned or blocked users, subject to the strict condition that the AfD participants were unaware that the article would have met the criterion and/or that the article creator's blocked or banned status was not known to the participants of the AfD discussion." Dom from Paris (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to PS Sumbawa Barat, which appears to be about the same team. Also, it's ineligible for G5 because there are other contributors. Smartyllama (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Upon further review, it appears to be a separate club, though I don't speak Javanese so I don't know for sure. In any case, it's ineligible for G5 and meets WP:FOOTYN per the previous AfD, so speedy keep. Smartyllama (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the keep arguments from the previous AfD still apply Spiderone 08:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep previous AfD still applies so G5 not apply here Hhkohh (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per previous comments and the previous AFD, meets WP:FOOTYN. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per consensus at last AFD. GiantSnowman 11:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the last AfD - a notable article even with the sock involved. SportingFlyer talk 03:25, 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. Consensus is that this is a hoax. Sandstein 14:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Soleman Shah[edit]

Syed Soleman Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely hoax. Fails WP:V, at the very least. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_hoax_on_Syed_Soleman_Shah for context. Fish+Karate 12:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. Note an old version of the article has more sources, all in Arabic(?) (which doesn't make a difference), but are open-source user-created uploads, are non-functioning, or don't mention the article subject (which does). For example, this reference (not in the current version of the article) contains no mention of the article subject. Fish+Karate 12:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This source is available, at least, but no page numbers are given so I can't tell if Syed Soleman Shah is mentioned in it easily (can't read Pashto). The first source in the article (حالات مشوانی / Halat-e-Mashwani, 1930) is now a dead link, but may be verifiable — the publisher, Muhammadi Steam Press Lahore was apparently at least printing books around that time. (In terms of being user-uploaded sources, a lot of them look like scans of older books, so should probably be instead judged on those terms rather than just as user-generated content, although I suppose they could be faked.) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 12:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pashtun asking for a Pashto speaker to assist. Fish+Karate 14:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for so many reasons: not notable, poorly sourced and likely a hoax. IWI (chat) 14:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All sources checked don’t mention the article's subject either. IWI (chat) 14:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possible hoax. CoolSkittle (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whether or not the individual existed, I don't think he has the reliable source coverage to reflect notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The individual has no notability as far as the primary English speaking audience of this particular Wikipedia may be concerned. He may be notable in other Wikipedias. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - while I have nominated this article for deletion, this is absolutely not a valid reason for deletion. Wikipedia is aiming to be the sum of all human knowledge, irrespective of what language it's presented in. Either someone is notable or they are not, the language by which their notability is established is immaterial. Fish+Karate 10:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. SemiHypercube ✎ 22:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment English is a national language of Pakistan, so the "English speaking audience of this particular Wikipedia" includes many Pakistanis. As for "likely a hoax" - is anyone going to AfD all the articles about early Christian saints and martyrs whose modern published sources inevitably rely on legend and posthumous hagiographies? I will search for sources before voting - as a transliteration, "Syed Soleman Shah" is unlikely to be the only English spelling of the name. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, per WP:AGF. Until we have someone clearly saying they have checked all the sources thoroughly, and the article subject isn't mentioned in them, I don't know why so many seem to be assuming this is a hoax or non-notable. Also, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog, I don't think language should have anything at all to do with notability, beyond different Wikipedias having different policies (and I don't see anything in English WP's policies that would support your position on this). —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 15:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like people have been able to check through the sources now, without being able to confirm the article. So, striking my keep. Thanks all! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 14:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep for now. I don’t understand why so many people have decided this must be a hoax. Maybe it is, but as I can’t read Pashto I don’t know. It looks exactly like what I would expect such an article to look like. If the subject of the article held the roles claimed for him then he was notable. I’ve no idea why we’d want to rush to zap this article when we have an abundance of articles about beauticians in Iowa and Bolivian footballers who played one match for one team.Mccapra (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People should know about the person who were alive centuries ago.--Syed Saqib Imad 17:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innocentbadshah (talk • contribs)

  • Delete articles are built on sources. Unless people can provide reliable sources to show notability, we should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment the article has plenty of sources, just not ones any of us can read. There are thousands of articles about Chinese history with only Chinese sources which are no more verifiable than this. Fish+Karate has asked for help from a Pashto speaker so let’s at least wait until we have that. If we’re just going to zap articles because they don’t have English sources it’s hard to see how we’re going to build a record of all human knowledge. Mccapra (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, but of the few sources I could access/translate, none even mention this person. The language barrier makes it more difficult to check sources but this does not preclude WP:V. Fish+Karate 10:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Fish and karate, Out of curiosity, which were you able to access and translate? Only a few (1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17 as of this revision) are positioned in the article in a way that looks like they would mention the subject (the rest are all just supporting various ancestors of the subject, not the subject themself, by my reading). I'd be grateful to know how to access any of those, a lot of them look like pre-digital things not yet available online (no URL in citation), and the others were scans only. Thanks! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 14:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just the information pages, but not the content, but none of the information pages mention the subject of this article, nor do they look like they will. As I said, we need someone who can speak the language(s) to provide full verification. I list them below:
    [39] - dead link, can't find an archive of it
    [40] - in Pashto. PDF.
    [41] In Arabic. Content not available, just a title ("Old Fashioned")
    [42] In Arabic. PDF. "The book of Rawad Al-Matar in the Tree of Flowers" is the Google-translated title.
    [43] In Arabic. PDF. "Book of the Mayor of the student in the genealogy of Abu Talib".
    [44] In Arabic. PDF. "Book of masterpiece of flowers and plantation of rivers in the genealogy of the sons of the pure imams". Another one about flowers.
    [45] In Arabic. PDF. I think this is a student's work book.
    [46] In Arabic. PDF. "The secret of the upper chain is in the upper saplings".
    [47] In Arabic. PDF. A "Book of population ratios".
    [48] In Arabic the sayings and teachings of Sahih al-Bukhari. No mention of article subject.
    [49] This is this book, which has nothing to do with the article subject. Some details at Kitab_al-Kafi#Usūl(fundamentals)_al-Kāfī.
The fact the references I can make sense of don't reference the article subject at all make me think this is not verifiable, hoax or not. Fish+Karate 14:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am still trying to get some assistance from speakers of these various languages, and have posted asking for an Arabic speaker to assist at both Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Arabic_speaker_needed and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Arab_world#Arabic_speaker_needed. Fish+Karate 14:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting! Thank you for taking the time to write this up. Some of the things from the genealogy section are certainly... botanical. I really wish the mashwani.org link to Halat-e-Mashwani weren't dead (although it was still a scan, rather than text). —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 15:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I've looked at half a dozen of the Arabic sources and I agree there does not seem to be any relationship between them and the text they refer to. They are about Sufism and isnad but without ploughing through entire online books there's no way of knowing whether they support the article text or not. It may be a hoax, though my guess is that the editor who created the article has derived the article text from a book, and where there were footnotes in the book, just googled to see if they could find an online version of the book cited, and linked to that without any attempt to relate to a specific page or anything. Anyway I'm much clearer now that the alleged references don't support the text, so I'm happy to change my view.
  • Delete the insertion of multiple "sources" that don't mention the subject is a clear indication of a hoax. We don't need to check every source in cases like this. Legacypac (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mashwanis probably needs reviewing carefully also. Fish+Karate 10:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(pinged) My A7 decline was imho correct since anyone noteworthy enough to write about 1300 later requires a closer look, It does not preclude a hoax deletion after discussion. I do agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's decision on Syed Qaaf as well. If the father is notable, there is a WP:ATD redirect/merge target and thus no reason to delete. Regards SoWhy 10:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Not criticizing your decline, that one was a reasonable assumption to make. Fish+Karate 10:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anyone proposing delete without having verified the citations, or without even making a comment that 'justifies' their position for delete, should be ignored from consideration of the final decision. I am sure you guys can find somebody who speaks Arabic to look through the material. Just don't rely on "possible hoax" as a reason for deleting articles. DA1 (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Someone has checked the sources and confirmed that none of those checked seem to mention the article's subject. IWI (chat) 13:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: I've seen articles where a user created their own OR (like a religious sect or movement that isn't even real). In this case, I'm guessing the subject simply isn't very notable. DA1 (talk) 14:30, 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 keep. Sandstein 10:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheshire Oaks Arena[edit]

Cheshire Oaks Arena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The arena is just the main sports hall at the Ellesmere Port Sports Village. It isn't permanent and they just pull down the seats for the basketball, otherwise the hall is used for any other sport. This would be a viable redirect if the sports village article existed, but it does not. There are no refs in the article and nothing on google. The arena is the home to Cheshire Phoenix so they are another via redirect target. Szzuk (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article says it's a multi-sports venue. I'm not sure why the seating arrangements would make the slightest difference in terms of notability. Smartyllama (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The multi sports venue is Ellesmere port sports village. This 'arena' exists for 12 matches per year x 4 hours per match = 48 hours per year. There are no refs for a reason. Szzuk (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did the bare minimum of sourcing the article, but other sources exist which discuss the arena in context as well, so it passes WP:GNG. Also a quick look shows other venues with roll-out bleacher seats have articles, like smaller American college basketball arenas. SportingFlyer talk 08:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I updated the article to reflect the fact it is a temporary arena, if we have to keep this it shouldn't be misleading. Also the refs you added don't support GNG, the first is a local website and the second doesn't mention the arena. Szzuk (talk) 10:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing wrong with local sources, there are other references such as [50] [51], and the arena isn't temporary. Many arenas have retractable seats in order to increase floor space when events aren't occurring. SportingFlyer talk 17:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that when the seats are retracted the venue is called Ellesmere Port Sports Village not Cheshire Oaks Arena. Your comment many arenas have retractable floor space when events aren't occurring implies the arena still exits when the seats are retracted - and it does not. After the last basketball match they retracted the seats and they played Badminton at Ellesmere Port Sports Village in that same space. Those refs don't support GNG. Ellesmere Port Sports Village is just the Leisure centre here [52] Szzuk (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It still exists, by whatever name. It's not uncommon for smaller venues to be located within a larger sports complex. Bender Arena is located within the American University Sports Complex building, which also includes a student recreation facility, a swimming pool, and several offices. Same with Burr Gymnasium. And those are just the ones in my immediate vicinity. There are plenty of others like that. In that case, the article reflects the situation, but nevertheless we have an article because those are notable topics. The layout of the arena or the building has absolutely no bearing on notability, though of course it should be mentioned in the article. Smartyllama (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide refs to demonstrate this venue satisfies Wp:n. A couple of local websites aren't enough. Szzuk (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Much of the deletion rationale centres around the arena only being a small part of Ellesmere Port Sports Village. No rationale has been put forward that the latter is not notable. The obvious solution is to expand and move to that title. If none of the participants in this discussion feel like doing that right now, then just leave it as it is until another editor takes an interest; Wikipedia is a work in progress. SpinningSpark 12:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are 6,000+ Leisure centres like Ellesmere Port Sports Village in the UK, very few have pages here on wp because they are just community gymnasiums and generally not notable. I can see this point hasn't come across. Szzuk (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But your nomination rationale wasn't notability. If it had been, I would have looked at that issue. SpinningSpark 13:26, 8 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) 00:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Led Zepagain[edit]

Led Zepagain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Trivial coverage in secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I normally would not think a tribute band to be notable, but there is significant coverage. I added two in-depth sources to the page and removed all of the unsourced promo crap. There are more that can be found with a quick Google search. They also receive mention in numerous books, including a biography of Led Zeppelin by Mick Wall.--CNMall41 (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sourcing and editing made by CNMall41 - a tribute band is still a band. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:11, 7 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. Sandstein 10:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Reimer[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Erich Reimer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This individual is not notable, and the article has already been deleted once for a lack of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.204.205 (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note Fixed malformed AfD. Copied reason from article talk page. I am neutral in this AfD. Hhkohh (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing stated here is an article-clinching notability claim in the absence of a WP:GNG-passing volume of media coverage for it — but the sources aren't getting him over GNG. Almost all of the references are unreliable sources, primary sources, pieces where he's the bylined author of content about himself or other things rather than the subject of coverage written by other people, or glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in coverage about other things — none of which supports notability at all. Literally the only source here that represents coverage about him in a reliable source is a piece of local coverage in his own hometown media, which is not enough coverage to clinch nationalized notability. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Above comment does not accurately describe the profile articles already on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. I personally looked at every single source on offer, and I'm not a person who needs lessons from anybody in what's a reliable source and what isn't. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Blaze is not a reliable source, it's Glenn Beck's thing. College newspapers don't assist in building a GNG pass, and neither do short blurbs about student government campaigns. Bearcat (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that I am not a Glenn Beck fan does not negate the fact that TheBlaze contributes to notabiity. As to undergrad newspapers, to a small degree. And the Washington Examiner. Not to mention the Fairfax Times a large-circulation regional daily serving the college town where subject was in law school.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Reimer has entered the JAG Corps and, according to this: More Americans Must Serve – And Now I Will, will not be publishing while he serves. I also Note that the profiles contain biographical info from which a decent article can be built.21:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - Person has been in media and entertainment/acting with meaningful audience and roles, per WP:ENT. Also seemingly significant third-party media reporting on person per WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, with some national reliable sources “focused” on person rather than just as part of a broader narrative (such as POLITICO). Potential too under WP:Politician (local). Article was approved through WP:AFC review process (by editor Chetsford) though it seems to not be fully up-to-date (for example, a Fox and Friends segment focusing on him is not present among other seemingly frequent third-party, although of varying national applicability, focused coverage). 96.82.14.234 (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Apparently I approved this at AfC but I'm not entirely sure what I was thinking at the time. Only a handful of those sources where he has received significant coverage are RS. The status of The Blaze is not really open for debate here as it's already been determined by consensus not to be a RS. Had I to review this over again I probably would neither have approved it nor rejected it but have left it for someone else to look at. The sources unambiguously establish that this person is a real, living human but mere proof of existence is not sufficient for a WP article. Further, a person can appear on 1,000 episodes of CNN Morning Express and Fox & Friends and that doesn't establish notability if they're only there commenting on things, versus being the subject of commentary. And campus newspapers may be fine to source facts, but certainly not to establish notability. That said, the Fairfax County Times is a good source, but the Washington Examiner is not because it covers him within the context of a political campaign which is addressed in WP:NPOL. It is very much on the edge but I'm leaning - though just barely - to weak delete. Chetsford (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I am with Chetsford on this one. As far as his appearances and his journalism, the entire article is sourced to WP:OR. I would say this is a good source but its only one and local. I would vote for the Blaze being reliable (I don't agree with all their views, but they do employ fact checkers - no matter how bad they may be), but consensus is against me so it wouldn't count. In the end, this is original research without significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable subject. Fails WP:BASIC, as well as the additional criteria of WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR (self-published book), and WP:POLITICIAN (school and college don't count nor future aspirations. There is weak support under WP:ENTERTAINER (political and financial commentator/writer) but pretty much is the extent of actual notability claims, which I don't see as enough significant coverage and I am not sure where the "actor" credentials come from, but edges me past "weak delete" to "delete". Otr500 (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments to support above "delete" rationale: Citation overkill on two sentences, that the subject was a "state party official in Virginia" (5 sources) and "Chair of the Charlottesville City Republican Party" (5-sources), of which neither advances encyclopedic notability. The Johns Hopkins press release where the subject entered school, and the self-published (Amazon) 38 page micro-booklet, are all signs of deception of notability. Being a local politician would mean that the local paper (ran for Student Bar Association vice president and Student Council representative) would cover a subject or events regularly. If allowed that as a criterion for notability then every town and county (parish) politician could have an article but they have been routinely deleted. Supposed claims (two references) of being a "political commentator" in a WJLA report (RNC renews support for Roy Moore amid allegations, polls hint at a GOP victory in Alabama) with comments (total of two paragraphs) from the introduced as "Conservative political commentator Erich Reimer". It is buried almost in the middle of the article. The next reference to this is an article from the "Friendly Atheists" (Conservative Blames Atheists for Forcing Courthouse to Remove Religious Phrase) where the subject is introduced as a "conservative commentator". On a search Twitter (@Erich Reimer) has him listed as: "Policy strategist, financial host, lawyer,columnist. Entrepreneur and actor. Background in gov/finance/tech.". Forbes might render some notability but it is a self-contributed and includes "I run a DC-area policy strategy firm..." and "I am President of Nueva Horizons LLC...". This leaves the DC-area Townhall commentator as any "claim to fame" or notability.
This is a case where combined trivial mentions are stacked to overwhelmingly advance notability. More than half the references are just that (ref stacking) and I stopped when it became evident article referencing is presenting far more notability than is factual if just considering reference count. I don't consider having 47,000 followers on Twitter as a "proof of notability for a worldwide encyclopedia. An ability of a subject to self-write a book, get an article on Forbes, and use Facebook and Twitter to an advantage for "getting his name out there" does not make them notable for any specific reason other than being good at self-promotion. Otr500 (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I see a lot of cite overkill, especially in the section regarding his political career, but little in adequate, in-depth sources to pass GNG.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:09, 7 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. Thanks to Tim, who added sources and even made a !delete vote change thanks to that. There is no really consensus to delete, and the main point of the nominator'sthat it did not get substantial coverage. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CTV2 (album)[edit]

CTV2 (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One review worthy of the name, no other substantial coverage, no charting (not sure if mixtapes "chart" anyway - search me). Appears not to fulfill WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If album is not notable, then redirect. The page serves a purpose by directing users to the artist's article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But the album isn't called CTV2 - unless it's commonly known as that, the value of a redirect is minimal. Richard3120 (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then move the page to Cool Tape Vol. 2, or create Cool Tape Vol. 2 and keep both as redirects. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've redirected Cool Tape Vol. 2 to Jaden Smith. I still think keeping CTV2 (album) as a redirect is helpful to users who may search by this title. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability, and the only source that appears to refer to the subject by this name is Genius which is not reliable. Keep, more sources have been found signed, Rosguill talk 20:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC) 18:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in the last post, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 17:19, 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. Sandstein 10:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merit (emo band)[edit]

Merit (emo band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet Wikipedia's requirements for a band or general notability requirements Greyjoy talk 05:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - highly promotional article... can find no in-depth coverage of this band. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Onel5969 TT me 16:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NBAND. No in depth coverage equals not notable. Ifnord (talk) 00:51, 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 keep. Sandstein 10:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Me (Marian Hill and Lauren Jauregui song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Back to Me (Marian Hill and Lauren Jauregui song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm aware of the prior deletion discussion on this song and have read through it. I still don't think this meets WP:NSONGS just for charting at #195 in France and at 14 on a Spain sales chart (note that this isn't the official chart that encompasses all metrics). The album (EP?) called Act One has no article, information about the song could easily be contained at a possibly expanded article for that or on the Marian Hill article. The charts table in the latter's discography section doesn't even have 10 charts listed on it which is the ideal. All of this information is easily accommodated there. NØ 10:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna amend my nom a bit because it has been demonstrated below that the song does have independent coverage in reliable sources. And the article has been improved too. Great thanks to Aoba47 for seeking out the sources. I now believe the article can stay since the WP:SIZESPLIT argument I made doesn't hold weight when the song itself is notable. I do, however, believe that the Marian Hill article itself, as well as Act One, need to be expanded. Whether thats by copying stuff from here onto there or by other efforts. But that obviously doesn't mean this article needs to be deleted. For what its worth, this nom can be considered withdrawn, but I'll refrain from archiving it myself in case someone else votes delete. Regards.--NØ 10:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not just the charts—that's just satisfying one criterion. It is the subject of multiple non-trivial works; Billboard and The Fader are cited on the article. It also meets the third criterion: Marian Hill and Lauren Jauregui are clearly notable. Having three paragraphs at Marian Hill's article would be giving undue weight to one song as well. I'm adding more to the article. Ss112 10:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This song is a chart single. It does not matter how famous, notable or how popular the song is. The song charted so there for my vote is in favor of keeping it. A song that has charted deserves a right to have a stand alone article. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 05:25, 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 delete. Sandstein 10:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard De Aragues[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Richard De Aragues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced stub that does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BLP. » Shadowowl | talk 09:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As a film director, he would need to meet WP:FILMMAKER / WP:DIRECTOR, and the most likely criterion is #3, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. His film TT3D: Closer to the Edge is a significant or well-known work, and is the subject of multiple independent reviews. Is this one film enough for him to meet WP:DIRECTOR? He has made a few other things (eg 2 episodes of a series), but most coverage is in relation to TT3D - apart from one article which is about him as the founder of a British drone racing team called Tornado XBlades Racing[59]. There is a bit more that could be said about him, but I'm not sure if it's enough to warrant a separate article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to TT3D: Closer to the Edge. According to the specialty guidelines noted in RebeccaGreen's comment above, a single film is enough to make the director notable. The crux is whether his single film would be considered significant or well-known. This is different than merely meeting Wikipedia notability standards. And it is subjective. I don't think that if Titanic were Cameron's only film, that would be a significant and well-known film. However, I don't believe this particular documentary meets either the significant or well-known. It would be one thing if it had been nominated for a major award, but I'm not sure that the British Independent Film Awards meets that criteria. Onel5969 TT me 15:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no independent reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR. -- LACaliNYC✉ 22:09, 9 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. Sandstein 14:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martim de Albuquerque[edit]

Martim de Albuquerque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NBIO/WP:GNG. Only 1 source. » Shadowowl | talk 09:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I find no mention of the 19th century Martim de Albuquerque at all, except as an author in issues of Notes and Queries. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being a contributor to a literary magazine does not inherently make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 9 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 is clear that subject passes WP:CREATIVE (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Albertine[edit]

Richard Albertine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim of notability per WP:BLP, and WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:49, 7 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. Sandstein 10:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 in home video[edit]

2018 in home video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although there are articles for years in home video dating back as 1971, I'm using this AfD a precendent before nominating any others. I have serious doubts about years of releases on home video (or DVD, blue ray or other media) being a notable topic ... as generally it would be considered more notable to include the year the production was first published. Of all 1004 sources on the article - every single source (I am yet to see any different) links to Amazon, an online shopping website - giving a look at some of the Amazon links they don't even specify the release date .. neither do a significant number of the Wikipedia articles of many of the titles. To top this off, the list has been mostly populated by IP users. In the end - fails WP:NOR WP:NOTCATALOGUE WP:NOTLINKFARM and WP:LISTN Ajf773 (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Given the references provided, this list passes WP:V. Given the scope of the list, it passes WP:LISTN via the much-higher standard WP:CSC. So this nomination is entirely based on WP:NOT, and this is not a sales catalogue because it does not include pricing or availability information – the latter considering that in theory the Amazon citations could be replaced with any other vendors', and much like with notability the current state of the article has zero bearing on whether it should be deleted or not. Modernponderer (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is questionable as there's no real importance as to when a film or television series was released on any sort of media. The references are almost unanimously linked to an online shopping site. They are not suitable sources for that reason, and not 100% reliable either. Ajf773 (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would suspect that the articles about earlier years (e.g., 1971 in home video) are more justifiable. When you go back that far, you get into the "firsts", the releases which could have historical significance for shaping the home-video market. Long ago, in the Before Times, the fact that a movie was released on home video was actually an event. Now, not so much. I would expect that any "Year N in home video" article would be about the history of the industry — when a new format was introduced, when a company imploded, etc. For example, "2018 in home video" could mention that eight of the nine remaining Blockbusters in the United States closed down, a development that had plenty of news coverage. This article ... isn't that. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I started an "events" section that might, in principle, be the basis of a keep-able page. XOR'easter (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a WP:SOFIXIT issue that merely requires the heavy discouragement of shopping sites as sources, not wholesale deletion. WP:FILM and WP:WPMEDIA mentions on those talk pages are appropriate. But per XOR, these articles should be less a bizarro time-shifted 2018 in film article with dates shifted three months and actually describe events in the industry. Nate • (chatter) 01:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • My inclination would be that any release date that can only be sourced to shopping sites is not worth including. But there are special cases where the release of a film on home video is still worth mentioning: when a formerly lost film is recovered or reconstructed and made available for the first time, for example. Our page 2010 in home video doesn't mention the reconstruction of Metropolis, but it should — that's actually a bit of film history. (So too, for different reasons, is Manos: The Hands of Fate, a restoration of which was released in 2015.) The original cut of Godzilla didn't come out in the US until 2006, I think, which is another type of event that deserves a bullet point in a timeline. A film becoming available because a ban of some kind was lifted is also noteworthy, e.g., A Clockwork Orange finally becoming available in the UK. These are the sorts of releases that media sources actually cover, so we have sources that aren't shopping sites. XOR'easter (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep these category of lists are a notable subject even if current refs may be unreliable and they can be improved as detailed above, no valid reason for deletion Atlantic306 (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no categories for film or television or other media being released on home video/DVD/blue-ray by year. The list of releases is simply a catalogue and linkfarm for online shopping and offers little in the way of encyclopedic content, other than what XOR'easter has added. Ajf773 (talk) 04:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep because this is actually interesting and useful information for countless reasons. Not everyone has access to theaters showing movies the day they come out so this is much more useful information about when a movie will be more readily accessible to a larger audience. Furthermore, despite the claims by XOR'easter, these pages actually do include information about when new video formats are released. All you have to do is look at the pages relating to those years. The mere fact that there have not been any new video formats in 2018 does not mean that that information will not be included in pages for previous or future years. --Nicholas0 (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:USEFUL is not a good argument for retention of an article or content. Ajf773 (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, despite the claims by XOR'easter, these pages actually do include information about when new video formats are released. Yes, for example, 1971 in home video to which I linked mentions the introduction of U-matic. I wasn't discussing the pages for prior years, just the one for 2018 that is being debated now. XOR'easter (talk) 17:11, 10 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. Sandstein 10:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythm Wagholikar[edit]

Rhythm Wagholikar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Won no major award,no coverage in reliable sources: Fails WP:GNG. Ignoring the promotional tone of the article, the books he has written are biographies of famous singers. Daiyusha (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 09:02, 7 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. Sandstein 10:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Coleman (karate)[edit]

Paul Coleman (karate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article for an karate practitioner and teacher. Fails WP:NSPORT and, there being no specific guideline for karate as a profession, would seem to fail the two nearest guidelines, WP:NKICK and WP:NMMA.

All but three references are incidental mentions on websites of karate associations. One reference is an interview on the blog of a karate association; it supports the effectively self-published list of achievements incorporated into this article. Two references are passing mentions in the local press, establishing that the individual teaches karate to children. A google search provides a small number of hits in relation to the individual having cancer, and a short BBC Oxford piece. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Fails both WP:NSPORT and the GNG. The coverage is not what I would call significant and independent.Sandals1 (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The lack of significant coverage is the problem. None of his competitive successes have any independent verification and the sources given tend to be passing mentions and/or not independent. At least 1 of the references doesn't even mention him. I searched some old martial arts magazine archives, but I didn't have any luck there. I also searched MA organizational websites and couldn't any confirmation of his tournament claims. I'm not saying they're not true, but WP requires verification of claims. His rank is insufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 21:44, 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. Michig (talk) 08:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maria do Carmo Gerônimo[edit]

Maria do Carmo Gerônimo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Longevity claimant about which there is very little documentation. Almost all of the story about her life is unsourced, what is sourced is to one place, and it tells us nothing but mundane life details. Even what appears to be significant is self-undermining, being one of a bunch of names in one Time article tells us nothing about her. WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non notable hoaxer who claimed to be 7 years older than the oldest "verified" person, a record that may be a hoax itself [61] Legacypac (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E and WP:NOPAGE. Her age claim is so outlandish that she scammed some news coverage, but she barely even qualifies to be listed in Longevity claims. Her claimed age of 129 is just that ridiculous. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed in an encyclopedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - One of those who were known only for claiming themselves to be oldest or very old. This is similar to other few recently nominated articles. These subjects lack significant coverage especially when we take their extraordinary claims into account. Rzvas (talk) 06:56, 9 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. Michig (talk) 08:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antisa Khvichava[edit]

Antisa Khvichava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Longevity claim with almost no information. Once stripped of the irrelevant filler material about Georgian record keeping and the flagrant GRG plug, there's basically the fact that she was born at some point, claimed to have lost her birth certificate, and died. All of the relevant information is best kept in list and table form at Longevity claims. WP:NOPAGE The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete pretty obvious fraud considering claim to have lived 10 years beyond the "verified" oldest person Jeanne Calment, a record that itself looks to be a fraud based on research by an expert. Legacypac (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails WP:BIO1E and WP:NOPAGE. Her age claim is so outlandish that she scammed some news coverage, but she doesn't even qualify to be listed in Longevity claims. Her claimed age is just that ridiculous. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed in an encyclopedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sourcing does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - One of those who were known only for claiming themselves to be oldest or very old. This is similar to other few recently nominated articles. These subjects lack significant coverage especially when we take their extraordinary claims into account. Rzvas (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources are more gossip than actual reliable secondary sources, especially since the claim is too extravagant to take seriously.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:13, 9 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. A redirect can be created editorially if desired. Sandstein 10:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies of the United States[edit]

List of companies of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actually proposing that this page be Redirected to Category:Companies of the United States, but because that change would result in removal of a lot of bytes, thought it best to bring it here for discussion.

The current list is really two: 1) a short (and out of date) list of the top 5 by revenue, which information can also be found in List of largest employers in the United States, Fortune Global 500#Fortune Global 500 list of year 2018 and the articles for the five linked companies; and 2) a minimally discriminate list of about 1,900 US companies, broken out between active and defunct, arranged alphabetically within each and with minimal additional information beyond the list entries. While limited to notable companies, i.e. those having WP articles, (a good thing), the main body of this list adds almost nothing to the category I propose to be the target (no sortable table, supplemental information, etc). And this has to be balanced against: 1) the huge number of notable companies with WP articles that are arbitrarily not in the list and in theory should be added, and 2) until the robots take over, the massive amount of editor time that would be required to maintain this list going forward, just to remove non-notable entries and to duplicate information as it is added within the tree of the proposed category. This proposal is consistent with how we treat over 200 other "List of" (or pseudo-"List of") pages that would otherwise be similarly unmanageable, such as List of living people, which is of course a redirect to Category:Living people. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/background: Man, I swear I've had that exact line of thought in my head every time I've touched that article. There's a long background here, including two prior AFDs that should probably be noted:
    • A similar AFD on List of Japanese companies occured in June 2007, with similar observations. The article was kept as the list built out additional information. Only tangential here since this one really is just a flat alphabetical list.
    • A very large AFD for all "companies of..." occurred in July 2007. This was closed as "keep", but with many observations on the general poor state of the lists and the redundancy.
I generally became aware of this series of lists through anti-spam activities - many of these articles were simple link directories. The lists were cleaned up, and at this point all but one of the 177 lists have "must have an article" as inclusion criteria (I wasn't able to get consensus quickly on List of companies of Iran and moved on to other articles). I later noticed Northamerica1000 introducing a more robust format for the lists, and I've since updated 166 of the lists to that format, including sortable tables with data that does not require much maintenance - incorporation date, headquarters, sector, etc. I did not update this list, however, for exactly the reasons outlined above. It's just too much, and this list is currently only a fraction of what could be on it. It also seems redundant with the large number of state lists, and the list at List of companies of the United States by state. Maybe one option would be to redirect to the state list and update those articles to a better format? Kuru (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A complete list would be far too long to be practical or useful. Plus you'd have to update it constantly for new and defunct ones. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above or Delete as this article is guaranteed to be always out of date and the category is a far better way to find the information. HighKing++ 19:10, 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. Michig (talk) 08:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Januszkiewicz[edit]

Barbara Januszkiewicz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I just can't see any indication that this person might meet WP:NARTIST. She has had a small number of minor shows which seem to have attracted minimal attention. The article has been maintained since 2009 by one COI editor, and was until recently much longer. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

collapse comments by blocked editor

:I tent disagree with the above statment.Januszkiewicz's resume is long and has had over 100 of exhibits and has been in many MUSEUM exhibits, it just so happens to be in her hometown of WASHINGTON, which does not show local artist.17:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I have a complete article for this subject now on my talk?sandbox page see.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Secondststudio/sandbox

Why can't we use this? ~singingthebleu~ 17:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that this is likely a page maintained for promotional purposes. Notability-wise, there are not a lot of sources out there for her or her work. The strange bit is that the Washington Post seems to have covered her not once but multiple times-- I saw three or four sources. I would have said delete if it was not for that. It's one of those situations where the artist is not really notable in her field, defintitely does not meet WP:ARTIST, but might meet GNG if we just look at the WaPo sources and a smattering of other small mentions.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 10:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On further investigation, the WaPo reporting is all by the same reporter, Mark Jenkins, so I will discount that coverage a bit and say Weak Delete. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 10:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the article creator has been indeffed for promotional editing (See below), I will change to delete and salt, given the nine-year promotional effort.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
collapse comments by blocked editor

*Comment I disagree again with the above comment:::Do you know they is no art critic for visuals arts with the Washington Post ironically ? They, being the Washington Post do not cover gallery opening, yet this Mark Jenkins who is not on staff, submits articles about music and art. So any artist worth anything, is lucky to get any coverage in DC, but mostly it will not be in the Post. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures comment added by Secondststudio (talk contribs) 17:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]

I just undid this recent 'edit' of the article, done by the SPA that has been maintaining the article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment, myself being the OP editor, I think it is very odd anyone would get me mixed up with the subject of my article .I have authored a few artciles, all about artists and jazz guys, all who don't go out of their way to bring attention to themselves. SO, this has never been a promotional outlet. Secondly, I have asked for help in fixing the code and posted on my sandbox page, a more current about this subject. Yet it get deleted as soon as I put it up. Come on guys, I am in poor health and can use a bit of support. And is it really fair to this creative activist/artists?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Secondststudio (talk • contribs)

  • Despite vehement claims to the contrary, the autobiographical nature of this article seems to be supported by this statement. The file has been deleted on Commons, but someone who is also an admin there can check the attribution and see if a statement was made indicating that this editor is the subject of this article. --Kinu t/c 23:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the footer notice at her website clearly reads "Second St Studio". I've blocked this account due to a promotional username along with promotional editing. -- Longhair\talk 04:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom for failing WP:NARTIST. References mention subject in passing so it appears to fail WP:GNG as well. Ifnord (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. COI concerns aside, there appears to be very little actual coverage in reliable sources about the subject of the article. A few passing mentions, but nothing substantive per WP:GNG/WP:NARTIST. --Kinu t/c 23:59, 8 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_December_7&oldid=1142616708"