Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 October	27 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Texans-Bengals Rivalry[edit]

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

Unsourced assertion that there's a "rivalry" between the two teams, rather than just run-of-the-mill encounters in the normal course of events. Cabayi (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't exist, period. The Texans simply haven't had a sustained period of success yet, so it's been nigh on impossible for a serious rivalry to develop, especially with a team not in their division. Also consider deleting Texans–Titans rivalry for the former reason. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the rivalry has been covered in local news: both in the Houston Chronicle and the Cincinnati Enquirer. This may not be good enough for the WP:GNG; but the rivalry does seem to exist. BenKuykendall (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The word "rival*" only appears three times in those two articles, both to add colour. Just because the word "rivalry" is used in an article or two doesn't mean it's a rivalry. SportingFlyer talk 01:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY. SportingFlyer talk 13:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, fails GNG WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They're both in the AFC, so they're going to play each other every so often, but the one- or two-shot use of the term "rival" does not seem to meet the threshold of dubbing this a notable rivalry, per se. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:05, 2 November 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) 08:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Pierce[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Hudson Reporter ref does not mention her. Wqwt (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The only source I can find on Google is the one from NJ.com. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete publishes with a vanity press, books lack secondary coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The argument that this lacks reliable sources and so should not be merged is convincing. Sandstein 12:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transpersonal chakras[edit]

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

No RS. Wqwt (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on chakras - the article on transpersonal chakras is only a brief one-sentence article, and it does not make sense for it to have its own article, as this only makes it harder for one to follow what chakras are. Can I also say that for a long time I was a member of the Transpersonal Section of the British Psychological Society, and I do not remember hearing the term "transpersonal chakras" used at any of their conferences. Vorbee (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vorbee: Why should this article be merged with chakras if there are no sources to back it up? Wqwt (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does have a source - it cites a work by Dale. Vorbee (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a reliable source? The book is published by Llewellyn Worldwide, self-described as "As the world's oldest and largest independent publisher of books for body, mind, and spirit, Llewellyn is dedicated to bringing our readers the very best in metaphysical books and resources. Since 1901, we've been at the forefront of holistic and metaphysical publishing and thought. We've been a source of illumination, instruction, and new perspectives on a wealth of topics, including astrology, tarot, wellness, earth-based spirituality, magic, and the paranormal. From e-books to tarot-themed iPhone apps, Llewellyn has embraced the Digital Age to continue our mission." (Aside: the company's article may not meet WP:CORP) Wqwt (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too vague to be merged. Nothing of any real value, "several chakras" (how many?) that "some contemporary esotericists" (who are these unnamed people and are they reliable?). Dom from Paris (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:36, 2 November 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 12:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subpersonal chakras[edit]

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

No RS. Wqwt (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. New age yogababble with no established notability. SpinningSpark 23:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources are either affiliated or do not exist any more and the only mentions I found are on very unreliable sites mostly linked to Reiki and as such this fails WP:PROFRINGE. Not material for an encyclopedia. --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:50, 2 November 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 Church Universal and Triumphant. Sandstein 12:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Summit Lighthouse[edit]

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

Heavily WP:PROMO with no independent references. I found some brief mentions: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/nr.2004.8.2.28?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/30034311?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents but this should be at most merged with Church_Universal_and_Triumphant Wqwt (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the church. The title can redirect to the appropriate section. I cleaned up some of the promo language. – SJ + 20:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The topic itself is notable – doi:10.1163/9789004235977_011 is a 15+ page chapter in a scholarly book (published by a reputable academic publisher) on this group. However, it isn't really a separate group from Church Universal and Triumphant. This is the original name of the group (which however is still used by the group), the later is its newer name. Some scholarly sources prefer to use the former name, others the later, but they are talking about the same thing. (Maybe within the group, some distinction is still drawn between the two, but external sources generally either treat them as synonymous, or else treat the former as an earlier stage in the evolution of the later.) SJK (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator and no delete votes. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Complication[edit]

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

No indication of passing WP:NALBUM. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was in Vancouver at the time and I was not previously aware of the compilation disc, but AllMusic has a review of it, local entertainment magazine Georgia Straight has a brief mention of it, Exclaim has a brief mention and Vancouver's second daily , The Province mentions it in relation to an auction. I'd like to see more, but it appears that this is a notable recording related to Vancouver's punk scene, and Vancouver was the major centre of the genre in Canada. I suspect that there may be a few more sources in print as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Walter Görlitz has found some useful sources and the fact that the compilation has been reissued attests to its importance. I have added the sources to the article, which had been completely unsourced for over ten years. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This does need improvement, but this album was an extremely important milestone in the history of Canadian punk rock — on a ProQuest search, I get evidence of hits as late as 2013, including a massive spike in coverage in 2005 when it was reissued on CD, and it gets some attention in the book Have Not Been the Same as well (which is saying something, because that book isn't even primarily meant to cover the period when this album actually came out — but it still loomed large enough that it comes up anyway). I have to head out shortly for a prior engagement, so I can't tackle it right away, but I'll take a stab of my own at beefing up the article some more as well. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I've now expanded the article and added some further sources above and beyond the ones that were already added by Walter Gorlitz. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Though the article needs improvement the recording has got notable sources according to the input from above editors and from the given sources and has also got enough publicity by print .Thus clearly satisfies WP:GNG.Vinodbasker (talk) 06:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm happy to close this out/withdraw the nomination. Seems to be an overwhelming support to keep. This was a close call for me. I know that Deletion is not cleanup, but initially felt that this really didn't warrant inclusion. The comments above have convinced me otherwise. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:36, 28 October 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) feminist (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Paisley and the Southern Grass[edit]

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

This article has been the source of a significant amount of WP:PROMO and WP:SPAM. I'm wondering now if it even meets notability requirements. Looks like just another run of the mill band to me. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I reverted back to a much more thoroughly-sourced version of the article and added a few references myself. A review of the material in the article, as well as a cursory search online, convinces me that the band meets WP:BAND criteria number 1 (i.e. non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the band). If there is a promotional push being made at the article due to a new lineup then that is a concern that needs to be monitored, but I don't think deletion is the answer in this case.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: If I'm interpreting the criteria correctly they would also appear to meet Criteria 5 with a release on Rounder Records and two on the indie lable Patuxent Music.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If an article is promotional, that's a reason to de-spam it, not to delete it. This band has won an International Bluegrass Music Association award and been nominated for several others,[1][2][3] performs internationally, and has been written about extensively by journalists and music reviewers. ([4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19])—Anne Delong (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keepsubject meets WP:BAND#1. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:48, 2 November 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 by overall consensus and expressed desire by the creator to delete it. I advise the creator to try to understand the concepts of significant coverage and notability as used on Wikipedia. The coverage must be significant, independent of the subject, in a reliable source, and not local, all at the same time. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linqua Franqa[edit]

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

Major WP:PROMO (and possibly autobiog/COI) going on here but it also appears to be WP:TOOSOON with only hyper local coverage and nothing significant as a politician or an artist. Tons of interviews but noting in the way of independent and in depth. And while there are a few mentions in non-local sources, they are not significant and fall under WP:BLP1E.Praxidicae (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I am not the person in the article, I can assure you of that. The article discusses music in Athens, GA, so I would argue this is a town that is very influential in music around the country. In addition, the article cites NPR, Georgia Public Broadcasting, CNN, Newsweek, and various others. I'm actually trying to add more material to the article to improve it, get others to come in and fill in details I don't have. It's honestly difficult to find sources because of the overwhelming amount of articles that talk about the Malcolm X autobiography swearing in, which aired on CNN our local television stations, etc. It was kind of a big deal. I'd also argue that Praxidicae may be doing this with political intent. I don't know who Praxidicae is and this person may be doing this innocently but Linqua Franqa ruffled a lot of feathers with the swearing in. I'd also argue that this is a black musician in a predominately white town and many of the articles discuss this issue that she is facing with representation and getting herself out there. This individual has had a profound influence on Athens music and bringing in the black community. This was definitely not the case a few years ago, where people were discriminated against based on dress codes and other issues that may the black community reluctant to go to the venues. She has been an activist who has promoted change in the music venues, brought in more music, and has definitely made a difference here.e6fanatics

(edit conflict)I'm not sure what political gain I could possibly have but I do not even know who this person is. With that being said, this is a deletion discussion about Linqua Franqa not Athens or it's history, so maybe let's stick to the topic at hand and not whatever else is in this wall of text... Praxidicae (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's an article that is connected with Athens, GA music history, which has its own artile. I'm wanting to add information about the hip-hop scene, so yes, it's important. It's considered an award winning article that is in desperate need of some updates based upon what is currently going on. e6fanatics|talk

How is this an award winning article and who has issued this award? Color me confused...Praxidicae (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Music of Athens, Georgia article is the one that was considered an award winning article at one time if I recall or it got on the main page as a best of. This article was just made a few hours ago without any chance of doing anymore editing without defending the existence of it.[[User talk::e6fanatics|e6fanatics|talk]]

Last I checked, that's not the article that I nominated for deletion... Praxidicae (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have or present "awards". Some articles are temporarily highlighted as good articles that represent solid examples of the Wikipedia process working at its best, but that's not an "award" — because our standards evolve over time, and articles can be made worse again as new people make new edits, having been highlighted at one time is not a permanent honour that the article retains forever as a distinction. And at any rate, notability is not inherited, so even the fact that an overview article about the city's music scene as a whole was once featured as a good article does not reify into an automatic inclusion freebie for every individual musician in that scene, if their own standalone notability in their own right isn't properly demonstrated. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're being a little bit rude about it, aren't you? I wanted to point out that the user, User:ONUnicorn, reviewed the article and said it did not qualify for deletion. I'd like to know their reasons before my further edits as to why you believe it can stay. e6fanatics|talk

He/She said it didn't qualify for speedy deletion. Praxidicae (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And also gave a reason why they wouldn't delete it based on it meeting criteria: "Article is not promotional in tone. References demonstrate at best marginal notability" .e6fanatics|talk

e6fanatics It might be best for you to check out WP:CSD and WP:AFD which discuss the difference in deletion criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to check there too because there are parts that say: C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted, which it definitely can be if you would wait instead of deleting an article that was just started. e6fanatics|talk

I have added to the article with information about her music from the New York Times, Performer Magazine, Magnet Magazine, Soundblab. I added extra information about the significance of the election because of her age and amount of votes. I'll see what else I can locate later on. E6fanatics (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nn Vermont (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont One of the rules of deletion that I noticed: "Don't just vote, explain your reasoning." In addition, after the revisions were made is there any possibility of changing this vote?E6fanatics (talk) 07:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E6fanatics, still not seeing notability. Vermont (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm from Athens so I don't know if that clouds my judgment, but this particular artist is very well known around here. This article appears to have a reference to the New York Times, Austin Townhall, Magnet Magazine, Impose Magazine, NPR, Vinyl Magazine, Medium, The Root, Essence, Teen Vogue, the Independent, Ebony, Newsweek, The Hill, a transcript from CNN (which I don't know about that one), Washington Times, AlterNet. These appear to be legitimate links with some on the indie side of music, but with several mainstream sources. The Medium article demonstrates that the protesting got some national attention before the Malcolm X incident. The New York Times article indicates a mainstream article that was interested in her music. I've also noticed an awful lot of editing so maybe the problems are resolved with this article. It appears to have more references than a lot of other articles I've read about a musical artist. It definitely needs some revisions to put bits of information into categories such as Influences, etc. Also, the Political Career category, I'd think something else would be better like Activism and Politics maybe? ZH321 (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ZH321, if she’s known “around here” she likely isn’t notable. Vermont (talk) 10:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vermont REM and the B52's are also known "around here", so I don't know how you can jump to that conclusion. Local notability discrediting general notability doesn't make logical sense. Affirming a disjunct.E6fanatics (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can do better than this. Local notability in a single city is not, in and of itself, enough to get a person into Wikipedia — R.E.M. and the B-52s are both internationally famous, not merely local notables whose fame is limited to Athens itself, so comparing her to them doesn't wash. But this is written in a very advertorialized public relations, rather than encyclopedic, style, and it doesn't make any claim of notability strong enough to override all of the problems with the sources — musicians aren't guaranteed Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and neither are county councillors, but this article as written isn't doing a good job of demonstrating that she clears the bar for either endeavour. The fact that she got a blip of coverage for choosing to be sworn in on a copy of Malcolm X's autobiography, in lieu of a conventional religious text, just makes her a WP:BLP1E, not a subject who's earned permanent coverage in an encyclopedia as of yet. Creator also needs to familiarize themself with our rules about reference bombing: the notability test is not cleared just by hyperpacking the number of footnotes present in the article as high as possible — the question of whether a person gets over WP:GNG or not is not just about how many footnotes there are, but takes into account factors like how substantively about her any given source is or isn't, the geographic range of where the coverage is coming from, and the context of what she's getting coverage for. Not all possible references are equally strong or equally valid demonstrators of encyclopedic notability — and too many of the references here are falling toward the bottom of the scale on one or more of the criteria that actually test whether a source is notability-supporting or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AdcockLIf I can interject - the article from NPR came about after a reporter actually saw her perform at SXSW. I understand the point about how not all references are equal - especially in the music press, when many writers either copy-paste from the presser or just squeeze out 100 words of basic bio info. But being noticed at SXSW - by NPR, no less - is a major accomplishment, given the massive swarm of artists that flock to Austin every year. Should also add that the Performer Magazine feature was the cover story for that issue, and that's NOT a local publication - they're based in Somerville, MA! AdcockL (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the NPR source is that it isn't about this person; it just mentions her name a single time in the process of being an unsubstantive listicle about a lot of people. People do not get over our notability criteria by getting named in media coverage that isn't about them; they get over our notability criteria by being the subject of substantive coverage. Bearcat (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

e6fanaticsYes! Magazine is based in Bainbridge Island, WA 98110. Buzzfeed is based in New York City. Alibi based in Albuquerque, NM. Overblown based in Ireland and the UK. Impose Magazine Kansas-based magazine. Backseat Mafia based in the UK. Big Takeover Magazine based in New York. E6fanatics (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that those sources all fall on the spectrum running from weak to outright garbage. Some of them aren't substantively about her, and the ones that are about her in any substantive way are WordPress blogs and alt-weeklies, not publications that count as notability-building coverage. Bearcat (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate representation of the articles. Yes! Magazine is a magazine not written as a blog, Buzzfeed is definitely not Wordpress, Alibi is not wordpress, Overblown reports stories that are published in NPR, Rolling Stone, NME, Pitchfork, Consequence of Sound, and Brooklyn Vegan, Impose also does not appear to be a wordpress, Big Takeover is a Magazine publication. The only one that even qualifies for that is the Backseat Mafia which runs a record label and puts on a music festival. This also demonstrates a lack of knowledge of website design and how several sites, including University websites are built with Wordpress. It's a web design method where you can build your site from the ground up using it and host it within your own domain site without connecting to the Wordpress webpageE6fanatics (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Completely accurate representation of the articles: I didn't say Yes was a blog, the problem with Yes is that the article isn't about her, it just mentions her in the process of being about something else, which is not support for a person's notability. Buzzfeed is a giant worthless bag of flaming cow shit when it comes to ever establishing the notability of anything or anybody, because it's Buzzfeed. Alibi is an alt-weekly, not a notability-supporting major daily newspaper. Overblown is a one-man Wordpress operation, so it doesn't matter where it aggregates some of its other content from. Impose does appear to be a WordPress blog; for starters, consider the fact that its "about" page is blank, thus making it impossible for us to evaluate it for essential reliable sourcing factors like who owns it or how many people are on its editorial masthead. And on and so forth. This doesn't demonstrate any lack of knowledge of website design on my part; for one thing, university sites aren't notability-building media, so what content management platform they use is irrelevant. Bearcat (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Overblown is a one-man Wordpress operation, so it doesn't matter where it aggregates some of its other content from." It says in the rules about Exceptions on blogs: "Self-published material and content from non-staff contributors may sometimes be acceptable when the author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications."E6fanatics (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That condition means that we can cite the self-published websites of established experts, like Robert Christgau in music or Roger Ebert in film, who are famous and notable in their own right as critics. It does not mean that every blogger gets to claim passage of that criterion just because their blog has been mentioned in other more reputable media — the blogger has to pass one of our notability criteria as a writer before his personal blog qualifies for the "exceptions on blogs" pass. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

e6fanaticsAs a young 18 year old black woman I feel like I'm being put on trial here with very condescending disrespectful comments throughout this process. In addition, seeing a young black woman also being put on trial to prove her worth to what I assume are white men, who has obtained a Masters, working on a PhD, working in local government, and pursuing a music career while other women degrade themselves in the hip hop world. This is woman that us young people look up to and who we should aspire to be. Honestly, this process makes my skin crawl and really justifies why people of color have to work so hard to achieve and how the world seems to be against us.E6fanatics (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
E6fanatics, how does race or sex have anything to do with this? Those in favor of deletion are simply saying that she doesn't meet WP:GNG. Vermont (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VermontDepending on who you are it can have a lot to do with your vantage point. I'd propose that CAPTAIN RAJU should add categories based on race, hip-hop, and gender queer should be added in order to have diversified eyes on the article.E6fanatics (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines: Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.

5. "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." Happy Happy Birthday To Me Records has releases by Of Montreal, Marshmallow Coast, The Essex Green, Great Lakes, and Masters of the Hemisphere, Bunnygrunt, The Ethical Debating Society, His Name Is Alive, Joe Jack Talcum, Skinny Girl Diet, Throwing Muses, The Wedding Present, Witching Waves, Keith John Adams, Baby Calendar, Bearsuit, Boyracer, Calvin, Don't Jump!, Casper & the Cookies, Fablefactory, Fishboy, Flink, The High Water Marks, The Ideal Free Distribution, Joanna Gruesome, Kingsauce, The Lovely Eggs, Russian Spy Camera, Sarandon, The Superions(Features member of the B-52's, Velcro Stars, Neutral Milk Hotel.

She is on the Sounds of Athens, a compilation record pressed by Kindercore. They released music by Of Montreal. Their new pressing plant has pressed KMFDM, Willie Nelson, Cindy Wilson, Kishi Bashi. They also pressed the vinyl version of Model Minority. source: https://www.discogs.com/label/1340627-Kindercore-Vinyl and http://athica.org/event/sounds-of-athens-record-release-party/

Having tracks on compilation albums does not count toward passage of this test: it's two full studio albums in her own name, not EPs or tracks on comps. Bearcat (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4. "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." The article mentions the tour with Jim James of My Morning Jacket.

The notability test here is not the ability to nominally verify that the person toured; it is the ability to show that the tour generated a boatload of media coverage about it, such as full-on reviews in major daily newspapers of every concert stop. Bearcat (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

7. "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." One of the most prominent members of the hip-hop community in Athens.

A criterion which isn't passed just because you say so, it's passed when solid sources tell us so by directly comparing her prominence to other members of the hip hop community in Athens, and this article shows no sources which do that. This is one of the most frequently abused criteria in NMUSIC, actually, because every musician can and does simply attempt to claim it — so it's one that has to be supported by much more solid sourcing than you've shown here before it turns into grounds for an article. Bearcat (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have found this source from Creative Loafing, with this quote. "In addition to being an active organizer in the Athens community, Parker is an ardent supporter of the city’s burgeoning hip-hop scene as a prominent MC and founder of Hot Corner Hip Hop." - Jake Van Valkenburg, Creative Loafing. https://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/content-412621-Mariah-Parker,-Soul-Food-Cypher,-A3C-carry-hip-hop%E2%80%99s-activist-legacy-E6fanatics (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

8. "Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition." Not sure if this qualifies but this is an award in honor of Vic Chesnutt. Most likely not. http://www.classiccityrotary.org/vic-chesnutt-songwriter-of-the-year.php

No, that wouldn't count. This criterion would apply to famous things like American Idol or The Voice, not to every music competition that exists. Bearcat (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10. "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc." She is in two documentary films. Sicyon Project and has a performance on the upcoming film Athens: GA 30 Years On. This is a sequel to Athens, GA: Inside/Out The trailer can be found here which shows her performing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX2ulrLgSQU

Appearances in films become notability when media write content about those appearances, not when they're referenced to the film's IMDb page or a YouTube copy of its trailer. It isn't a free notability pass just because you can provide technical verification that it happened — it only becomes notability when media have devoted their editorial resources to producing independent content about the film appearance which analyzes why the film appearance is noteworthy. Bearcat (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11. "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network." The NPR show mentioned in the article.

There is no source in the article indicating that she's been placed in rotation by NPR — there's an NPR article which mentions her name in the process of not being about her, but nothing which says anything whatsoever about her getting placed in rotation by the network — an embedded Spotify playlist in the article itself does not constitute passage of this criterion, if you can't prove that the network threw her song on the air on a regular basis. And since NPR doesn't even have any centralized playlisting, but rather each NPR music station makes its own completely independent playlisting decisions about its own station alone (and most of them, at that, are talk or classical stations, not contemporary music stations that would be playing a hip hop artist), this is a criterion it's virtually impossible for NPR to pass at all. Bearcat (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15. "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." CNN broadcast.E6fanatics (talk) 06:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only CNN broadcast mentioned in the article is a transcript in which she gets briefly mentioned as the very last news brief before the anchor signs off. The test for this criterion is being the subject of a whole show, not just having her name mentioned in the final minute. Bearcat (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is, the rule is not that as long as you can claim that a person checks one or more boxes in NMUSIC, they're entitled to have an article no matter how lousy the sourcing for it is. None of the criteria in NMUSIC can be passed without really solid sourcing for the claim — a musician's notability lives or dies not on what the article says, but on how well it does or doesn't reference what it says, and the sourcing here is far too strongly dependent on unreliable sources and glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things, and not nearly enough on reliable or notability-supporting coverage about her. She can claim to pass every criterion in NMUSIC, but the sourcing still has to be better than this before an article gets to exist — because the controlling factor is the "quality of the sourcing" test, not the "what the article says" test. Bearcat (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I request that the bulk of this discussion that doesn't otherwise contribute to the AFD be moved to the talk page as it's somewhat derailing it due to an apparent lack of understanding Wikipedia's requirements. Praxidicae (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, reinforced by how the lack of notability has been discussed in detail and at great length in the comments above. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She's on Adult Swim streaming right now http://www.adultswim.com/streams . Wouldn't this count toward notability as appearing on a national network program? Wayback machine link used. Viewing the page source is needed to see the script which uses Schema.org items to display the shows. Wayback is not running the script properly. E6fanatics (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NPOL as failing WP:NSINGER and WP:NOTPROMO. This is very clearly a splendid effort by a publicity hungry person to get her name out in as many sources as possible judging by the mass of puff pieces and reports of a publicity stunt during her swearing in and as she says "I wanted Malcolm's book. I think they saw it coming." I think we can all see it coming too...Dom from Paris (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that if I am doing promo, how would that work exactly? Am I the artist, even though I was editing this article at 10:44pm last night while also performing Live simultaneously on that Adult Swim show? At this point I just want the articles deleted. If it's going to drag people through the mud like this then it's not worth it.E6fanatics (talk) 14:45, 2 November 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleb Mitchell[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO and is being used by the artist and his staff as WP:PROMO. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete comes nowhere near meeting WP:MUSICBIO. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON I guess is the best I can come up with ☆ Bri (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. The subject had 450000 play on Spotify, so he is becoming popular, but no coverage, outside marketing efforts at the moment, WP:TOOSOON. No doubt the article will be back in a years time. scope_creep (talk) 09:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could well be notable eventually, but "eventually" isn't here yet. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above, SIGCOV particularly. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 16:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No meaningful claim of notability and no sources found in a Google search to support a claim of notability, let alone to support the statement that "He is the first musician to come out of Wharton, New Jersey." Alansohn (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be WP:TOOSOON, though he is becoming popular does not satisfy WP:SIGCOV and WP:MUSICBIO because of the lack of coverage .Vinodbasker (talk) 06:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 11:49, 2 November 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. Improvements made during the course of the AfD push this over the WP:GNG bar. @Tomwill1: please read WP:COI to determine if it applies to you; if it does, please make the appropriate declarations. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Crowther (ecologist)[edit]

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

Scant coverage of subject in reliable, independent sources does not satisfy general notability guideline, nor is it apparent the subject meets WP:SCHOLAR notability guidelines. News coverage seems to be limited to quotes or routine coverage of individual studies. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With regards to general notability, Prof. Crowther has received significant coverage of both himself and his work in the public domain. Within the article, I have now added further citations to include; additional coverage from the Independent [20] [21], CNN [22], NPR Connecticut [23], Time [24], NU.nl [25], Reuters [26], The Sydney Morning Herald [27] and KFOX [28]. Further, I have also added references to direct interviews with Professor Crowther. These include; a feature length article on the BBC [29], a video from Stadt-Mensch.ch (a Swiss media outlet providing portraits on notable residents of Zürich) [30], and a podcast interview with Esri (a GIS mapping company) [31]. I’m sure there are further articles covering him and his work, but with these updates I would consider the sheer volume and the global nature of the coverage as more than ‘scant’.

Comment - I would also consider the above coverage to be in excess of “routine”. The mainstream media do not typically cover ecological research or researchers, but Crowther is at the forefront of his field, and clearly driving the climate change debate in this area. Whilst there is a lot of public coverage of Crowther at the time of his research publications, he is also regarded as a “climate change expert” and has been requested to comment on major global events over a consistent period of time. This includes being quoted by newspapers on: the outcomes from COP21 (the BBC), the decision of Donald Trump to pull out of the Paris agreement (the Independent), and the decision to lift the US coal moratorium (the Independent). The article has been updated to include his quotes on these global issues. As covered in the first draft of this article he was also included as a climate change expert in the creation of the ‘Clean Air Rule’. These quotations in mainstream national media directly satisfy the notability guidance for academics, as stated in the WP:SCHOLAR notability guidelines for criterion 7.

Comment - In terms of reliability and independence, all information included in the article is published by established outlets (as listed above). I have updated the article to include citations of his peer reviewed research. In addition, I have included references to a citation index which show it is in the top 5% of research for impact (and the 99th percentile for researchers of his age) to demonstrate that this research is at the forefront of its field [32] [33]. I have also now updated the article to include citations from secondary sources. These include academic review articles (which summarise the most significant, up to date research in this area and reference his work e.g. [34] as well as textbooks which directly reference Prof. Crowther’s work [35]. These both fulfil the requirements in the WP:SCHOLAR notability guidelines for criterion 1.

Comment - As the science advisor to the UN's Billion Tree Campaign his research and the story of his academic life has also been included within a children’s textbook [36], which is distributed to all of Plant-for-the-Planet’s youth ambassadors (of which there are over 100,000 [37]. This emphasises that his research fulfils WP:SCHOLAR notability guidelines criterion 7 (having a substantial impact outside academia). Tomwill1 (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with the above updates, the article meets the general notability guideline and specifically addresses the WP:SCHOLAR notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomwill1 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Further citations have been added to the article to show that criterion 1 (significant impact within the scholarly discipline) is met under WP:SCHOLAR notability guidelines. A additional textbook featuring Dr. Crowther's soil carbon work [38] as well as a review of the latest research in this field, published in Nature [39]. One of the key aspects to consider in meeting criterion 1 is citation rate. Crowther's major publications featured in the article clearly have an outstanding citation rate (as noted in the above comment. I have also considered Crowther's impact for his overall work. Whilst the limitation of using Google Scholar are referenced in the WP:SCHOLAR notability guidelines, this can be used as a supporting source in this instance. The major publications in the field of ecology (with the highest impact factor) are Nature, Science, PNAS, Nature Climate Change, Nature Ecology & Evolution - citations from all of these journals (and many others in the field) are cited by Google Scholar. Professor Crowther's research has been cited by his peers 737 times within the last 12 months [40]. From a review of other leaders in the field Crowther stands out against those such as Tracey Rogers with 205 citations [41], Roberto Cazzolla Gatti with 211 citations [42] and Jacqueline McGlade with 228 citations. He is driving the field in this area with three times more citations than other notable academics. Tomwill1 (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - further information has been included on Crowther's unique philanthropic funding [43] [44]. The long term nature of this thirteen year funding for over €17m is notable in its own right. This level of funding in the field of ecology is extremely unique, and far exceeds the public funding typically available to researchers through their individual governments or collective organisations such as the European Research Council. This also shows that Crowther will remain a notable contributor, at the forefront of his scholarly discipline, for the foreseeable future. Tomwill1 (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage mentioned above is significant and not routine. Meets GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I am still on the fence a bit. There are many references, good ones. But notability is what others write about the subject, not what the subject writes about. The mainstream media references are all about his 2015 study, which is a little WP:SINGLEEVENT. The study itself is definitely notable, and while notoriety is not inherited, I think he meets criteria for being the lead author. Ifnord (talk) 13:45, 3 November 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casandra Lopez[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of the article. There are some passing mentions but none with significant focus on the subject. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it may be WP:TOOSOON for this poet. Despite minor award, fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per E.M.Gregory as WP:TOOSOON. I was hoping to rescue this one, trying criteria 1 in WP:AUTHOR, but I really couldn't find peers referencing her or citing her. She is definitely published, pretty widely, but she has yet to make a substantial impact. Ifnord (talk) 13:57, 3 November 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 redirect to October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts. Article creator already redirected the page. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Sayok[edit]

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

This article only has one line and has got a link to a website that contains the information. and i would say that it would not be useful for wikipedia B. N .D | ✉ 16:36, 26 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SVAKOM Design USA Limited[edit]

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

Fails on WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Signs of UPE and covert advertisement. Borderline A7 case. Hitro talk 15:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for failing WP:NCORP. Their most famous product seems to have some media mentions but WP:INHERITORG. Ifnord (talk) 14:03, 3 November 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. Withdrawal from nominator (non-admin closure) CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

West Otago[edit]

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

Said to be the name for a region in Otago, without significant coverage in reliable sources dedicated to the name itself. Otago would be a proper redirect target, but there's nothing in this to salvage, so AFDing. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Otago. Ajf773 (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am told by Southland-born and raised residents of North Otago that this is very much a region and not part of South Otago. Described by them as covering Tapanui ('flu) Kelso and Heriot. See this. Can't provide more citations than suggesting looking up "West Otago" in Google which comes up with "About 48,400 results". This kind of thing is what Wikipedia is here for. (0.44 seconds)" Eddaido (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is very much a distinct region of Otago, centred around Tapanui. And if you wish I could provide you with any number of references which refer to it. And before you say "well, that could simply refer to the west of Otago", all of these references are to West Otago, i.e., the area around Tapanui and Lawrence (which, geographically, are not in Otago's westernomst part). Grutness...wha? 01:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded the article a little. Grutness...wha? 02:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - It could still probably be merged into Otago and I already saw the Google hits for "West Otago school", "West Otago Theatrical Society", etc, before I AFD'd this (because this AFD wasn't based strictly on Google hits). Thus far, you've presented the most compelling argument.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Withdrawing although this could still probably be merged somewhere.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 11:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grutness. SportingFlyer talk 02:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Geographical area. Keep as per Grutness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep as per Grutness. Sheldybett (talk) 05:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' or Move to Otago - unless we intend to split the Regions in New Zealand into north, south, east, and west, which seems pointless. NealeFamily (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of New Zealand's regions have sub-articles based on areas within them which have historically been regarded as having their own character, such as Central Otago, King Country, Wairarapa, Mid Canterbury, Thames Valley, Hibiscus Coast, Seventy Mile Bush, Te Urewera, and Maniototo, for instance... West Otago is no different to these. Grutness...wha? 13:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Gutness. Looking at the list though Central Otago Mid Canterbury, Thames Valley, and possibly the Hibisduc Coast do not seem to merit their own articles under WP:GEO and WP:GNG. My reasoning is that the Otago article could easily include the sub-areas without overloading the article; and Canterbury could include mid-Canterbury. If you look up North Canterbury it redirects you to Canterbury, although South Canterbury has its own article. A redirect would seem more appropriate here. NealeFamily (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Morpho Ayahuasca center[edit]

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

Procedural nomination of a declined prod. This is an unusal one. The AfD in 2014 closed as "delete". The article was restored during by user:DGG during the subsequent deletion review for the purposes of discussion. The review upheld the result of the AfD. However, the closer user:IronGargoyle declined to actually delete it as the page had substantially changed while at DRV. Neither prod nor CSD G4 are therefore appropriate actions.

While I am not making a recommendation, I would like to bring to the attention of the discussion that the page has been severely butchered. All of the references have twice been deleted [45][46] and are still absent now. I haven't checked these refs in any depth, but at least some of them have at least mentions of the subject. All of the images were removed in this edit; imho at least one image of the facility would be appropriate in such an article, and would be beneficial to include. SpinningSpark 20:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1: I'm glad SpinningSpark brought this here, because it does need to be fully reconsidered. I'm not giving an opinion yet. I checked the history, because it seemed unlikely to me that Time would have done a story but nobody else. There were additional sources added after the afd by Kevin Gorman , which he never added properly, and were deleted as mere EL's instead of being expanded , I've restored them as "Additional References" . They consist of several substantial accounts ,including NPR and National Geographic. (I will expand them tomorrow if nobody gets there before me). They need to be taken into consideration.
Comment 2. The original article had extensive promotional material: this is a commercial shamanism center with a tourist cliental . A little of it seems to remain. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 26 October 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming at the 2019 Pan American Games – Men's 50 metre freestyle[edit]

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

Way too early for this now. Also one can argue it violates WP:CRYSTALBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC) Also nominating the following for the same reasons:[reply]

Delete all of these per WP: TOOSOON. Vorbee (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, per nom. Recreate when there's something to write, above and beyond some empty tables. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, will be notable eventually but not yet. Smartyllama (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP: TOOSOON, though draftify could also be a viable option. Aoba47 (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly too soon; and I agree that the editor creating these needs to heed the feedback on their talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:46, 29 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April Apocalypse[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Nothing found in a before search and contrary to what is written in the article did not receive a general release but directly to VOD as per the official Facebook page for the film [47]. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are a few English language reviews out there (example). I found more in Spanish (here, here, and here), but most are capsule reviews. Rosario (talk) 03:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the film has significant coverage in Spanish film sources as highlighted above and other Spanish reviews so passes WP:GNG, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not convinced that the coverage exists (and there isn't much) satisfies WP:RS. --Michig (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Spanish coverage is shown in the links here, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sources that I'm familiar with, but one is a blog, and one is a podcast associated with a blog. Whether the others would satisfy WP:RS or are just typical webzines I don't know. --Michig (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom for failing WP:NFILM. The references quoted by Rosario are a paragraph or less, not even close to satisfying WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 14:07, 3 November 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) 08:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Mahmoudvand[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG. Couldn't find any confirmed appearances in Iranian Pro League, so until someone does, he also fails WP:NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ There are a number of Persian sources for WP:NFOOTY [48] [49][50]. فرهنگ2016 (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checked these links via google translate. None of them confirm his actual appearances on the pitch. There are only mentions of him joining the club (Sepahan) as a third-choice GK. In my opinion, this does not go beyond routine. -- BlameRuiner (talk) 10:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BlameRuiner Maybe you're right, I'm not sure exactly. فرهنگ2016 (talk) 11:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom, appears he has never played in a WP:FPL and the sources all fail WP:GNG. 21.colinthompson (talk) 00:47, 30 October 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, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpion attack[edit]

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

No English language sources for this phrase...I read a fair amount of military history and have never encountered it. TheLongTone (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doubtless combined arms attacks featuring a pincer movement in combination with an airstrike have happened many times. Then again, combining an airstrike with some other form of ground attack has happened frequently. There does not seem to be an English name for this form of attack as such. Neither does the machine translations of the Vietnamese sources contain the word "scorpion", or any other word to describe the overall strategy. The tactic is translated as "pincers" or "pliers" in all three sources with the air component described separately. The naming and identifying of the attack as a distinct maneouver seems to be WP:OR on the part of the article author. SpinningSpark 20:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found refs to an airplane, a combat vehicle and a military unit, but no attack types.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any reference to the term as such, even in the supplied sources. Already an article on Pincer attack. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation Tour[edit]

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

WP:ROUTINE coverage. Fails WP:NTOUR. --wooden superman 13:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course. Please stop nominating articles about major tours by notable artists for deletion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I? Isn't the issue that editors shouldn't be making articles that fail the notability guidelines? A major tour by a notable artist is not automatically notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NTOUR. --wooden superman 14:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It fails NTOUR, but meets GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is Aguilera's first tour in a decade, it made headlines and sold out at almost every date. --Lorddennisjoplin (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a simple Google search shows plenty of articles that cover this tour and point to its notability. Aoba47 (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's covered by major media, including Billboard magazine. Also, it's a tour by a popular artist. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google News shows plenty of sources [51] [52] [53] [54]. This is the same as with the Ariana Grande AFD's where the nomination is based on a literal interpretation or misinterpretation of WP:NTOUR.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 11:58, 2 November 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 12:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland Co-op[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Citations are mostly WP:SPS and/or non-independent. Also of note: There are several entities known as Heartland Co-op; this one is the agricultural organization in Iowa. This article was the sole Wikipedia contribution of the article creator. Softlavender (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Desirée Mariottini[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, no indication that this will meet criteria of WP:CRIME PRODed but PROD removed by ip editor with no explanation. TheLongTone (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The murder case has generated attention from the highest political levels in Italy (Minister Matteo Salvini) and the murder case has received coverage in the United Kingdom (BBC), Ghana and Malta. Sources have been added to the article. AadaamS (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MSN published an article on the case. Will be added to the article. AadaamS (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The President of the European Parliament Antonio Tajani has commented the case from Strasbourg. Changing my vote to Speedy Keep. AadaamS (talk) 07:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a case with global interest related to wider issues. Many single victim murders don't have that but do have articles. That it is politically sensitive is a reason to keep the article, not censor the subject. Chwyatt (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced notable case with top-level political reactions and international media reception.--Greywin (talk) 09:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with above, the story has made worldwide news Unibond (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a simple Google search shows that there is substantial coverage, which establishes notability. Aoba47 (talk) 05:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has got wide coverage and United Kingdom (BBC) has reported it to be a very reliable case and thus satisfies WP:GNG as it has independent reliable sources and to prove its popularity and impact. Strongly agree with AadaamS.Vinodbasker (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with comments by Antonio Tajani, this case has definitely reached the highest political levels in Italy and is entering European-level politics. Is this AfD still open? AadaamS (talk) 07:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of coverage. plenty of good sources. Snow Keep.BabbaQ (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So, this is fundamentally an article about the immigration in Italy. As such it risks becoming a content fork and also a coatrack. I think, bearing this in mind, that a suitable merge & redirect target exists.
Keep . There was so muchj attention for this case in Italy but also abroad. Dan Holsinger (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
commentI see nothing to address WP:TOOSOON of WP:NOTNEWS. And I would not say the case has attracted widespread overseas intest; I consume a great deal of news and this story has certainly not generated significant coverage in the UK.TheLongTone (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The case has significant coverage in Italy, national level news amounts to WP:SIGCOV. There is nothing in guidelines to suggest that significant coverage in UK press is mandatory. Per WP:COMPETENCE, it is perfectly valid for multilingual editors to build articles using non-English sources. Per WP:NOTNEWS: For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia, this has gained significant political attention, it is therefore not routine and WP:NOTNEWS is not applicable. AadaamS (talk) 06:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This story has been covered in the UK by the BBC. AadaamS (talk) 06:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's still WP:TOOSOON. And it is still likely to become a coatrack; it has only attracted the BBC attention because of grandstanding by the extreme right.TheLongTone (talk) 12:20, 2 November 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 12:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bandito Tour[edit]

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

WP:ROUTINE coverage. Fails WP:NTOUR. --wooden superman 12:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON and agree that the coverage is not about the tour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 26 October 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) 08:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Way to Help[edit]

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

Seems like a non notable company. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, and I cant find any coverage to meet WP:NCORP. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 11:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable company (through both WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:NCORP). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 11:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 11:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even combined searches using "Orange County" and/or "Bockhorst" did not bring about sources that would make this meet NCORP/GNG. Sam Sailor 11:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence to support WP:GNG here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:14, 30 October 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 12:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Izu Islands earthquake[edit]

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

This earthquake entirely fails to meet the notability criteria for earthquakes Mikenorton (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although the earthquake had a magnitude of 7.1 and was not a Deep-focus earthquake, it does not meet any of the other notability criteria. No deaths or even damage as the epicentre was so far below the ground. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This one has been on my list of articles to delete for quite some time. A lack of effects means that there is no reason to write about it in an encyclopedia article or list. Do not redirect. Dawnseeker2000 08:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 26 October 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 12:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009 Sumatra earthquake[edit]

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

This earthquake entirely fails to meet the notability criteria for earthquakes Mikenorton (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:NEARTHQUAKE (as nom) as magnitude less than 7, no deaths directly attributable and little to no interest scientifically. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 26 October 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 12:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DOOGEE[edit]

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

There are two problems with this article, notability and tone. The article reads like an advertisement for the company's products. Tone isn't a basis for deletion, but removing all of the promotional material would leave a stub. That leads to the second issue, notability. A Google search shows that the company exists and publicizes itself; we knew that. It doesn't find independent coverage. So between a tone problem and a notability problem, this page can be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any independent WP:RS sources either. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Narky Blert (talk) 13:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing your feedback on my article. However, I genuinely believe the article should not be deleted. Firstly the article is on the requested Wikipedia article list. Secondly, the article is cited with multiple reliable sources that allow it too be verified. In line with the Wikipedia criteria on reliable sources, most sources cited are published news articles that have been written by a journalist and their names have been given. Furthermore, the date of the articles are all very current. A couple articles have been sourced from company outlets that are in fact competitors of DOOGEE such as Xiaomi, and hence would have no incentive to make statements that inflate the companies profile as it would hinder their performance.

Additionally, official websites have been used to verify information that is objective and has no significance in being falsified.

In regards to the article sounding like an advertisement, I have attempted to present a neutral overview of the company as well as a brief overview of the main series of products they produce and the regions in which they sell them (Specifically the "Products" and "Distributors" subheadings). In doing so, I aim for the article to cover a diverse range of relevant topics about DOOGEE to allow for a detailed article, as well as allow readers to have access to important aspects of the company without having to search the whole internet to find the information.

Due to the aforementioned, I motion that the article on DOOGEE, not be deleted. May others also please read through the article, and conduct a peer review, and then inform of any recommendations that would assist in improving the article so it may not be deleted Chris Tem123 (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur the nom and other delete vote, and will recite WP:NCORP and more specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. DOOGEE may even lack a claim to significance, as it seems to be a run-of-the mill electronics company. Coverage cited in the article is not in-depth as required by NCORP, and said coverage is centered around brief articles announcing the launch or sale of a new phone. Sources attributable to the company itself are primary, and thus also not independent of the subject as required by NCORP.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; "the company exists and publicizes itself" sums this up. WP:TNT by an independent editor, if decent sources appear in the future. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Detailed product listings and distributors lists. No scope_creep (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help Thank you everyone for the feedback. Rather than deleting the article, could you all please suggest areas that could be improved so that the article can remain on wikipedia Chris Tem123 (talk) 22:14, 28 October 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. Whether to redirect these to appropriate articles is left to editorial discretion, as is possible recreation if they can be shown to meet WP:GNG. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Duncan[edit]

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

A series of youth hockey players (aged 16-18 year) who participated at the 2018 Youth Olympics. While playing at the senior Olympics is normally considered sufficient to be notable, playing at the Youth Olympics isn't.

Also nominated for the same reasons are:

They all received the routine coverage one may expect in such situations, but don't meet the standards we have for most sports at WP:NSPORTS. Fram (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Youth Olympics are notable per WP:YOUNGATH, WP:GNG as national field hockey champions, representatives of Australia in international field hockey competition in South Africa, and per WP:Notability (sports) as the first Australian Women's Field Hockey team to participate in the 2018 Youth Olympic Games. ~~medal winners~~ Olympic level qualifiers are customarily covered substantially in independent sources prior to (national/international competition & various qualifying games) and after the Youth Olympics. I don’t think we should restrict a national/international athlete’s notability based on age when other notability criteria has been met. For example, Grace Young (field hockey) was covered in independent RS because she excelled on a national level and qualified to tour internationally. Youths of that caliber are typically competing long term and receive long term media coverage. I’m also not seeing anything in our PAGs that would justify exclusion based on age. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 15:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC) ^{Underlined portions added after more research, and information is found per ongoing discussion here. 19:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)}[reply]

Add example sources: write-up on the team, BBC coverage of 2018 Youth Olympics (new privacy laws restricts my access), and Naomi Duncan full feature. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 02:32, October 26, 2018‎

Please sign and date your posts, this one was from 26 October, 10 days later than the one above. Anyway, in what way are a primary source (the Australian olympic committee describing their choices for the youth olympics) or a general source with nothing about these individuals relevant for this discussion at all? Fram (talk) 07:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, I let one slip by...it's fixed now. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 17:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- "Youth Olympic medal winners are customarily covered substantially in independent sources": they finished fifth, they aren't medal winners? And I don't dispute that the games are notable, but notability is not inherited, and participating in a notable event doesn't make you notable. The Young sources seem to be all local, the kind of coverage most talented young athletes get in local news but which isn't considered sufficient for inclusion here for most sports. Fram (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and appreciate your side of the argument, Fram - I’ve actually been on the opposing side of deletion arguments for teen beauty contestants. I’ve also considered the fact that we have articles about Little League Baseball, High School Football, Gatorade Player of the Year awards, etc. Admittedly, I have not invested a great deal of time/effort looking for RS for all the subjects of this AfD, but I scanned Google for Young, and did a shorter scan for Morgan and found enough to satisfy WP:N...and the coverage was not just local or passing mention (I added info & RS to their articles). For example, Morgan was the team captain for the South Africa tour, and their team finished undefeated. Most sports media don’t even cover women’s sports much less teens, so finding as much as I did in a brief scan on Google is an indication there is far more out there. The young ladies subject of this AfD are, at minimum, national sports notables. The Donna Strickland article may not be the best example to use here since there is no comparison between sports and physics, but I think it’s important that we not rush to delete verifiable national sports champions (who are also Youth Olympic ~~medalists~~ qualifiers finishing 5th) because of age (or gender). It’s always better to cover our bases, and quite frankly, I’m not convinced that enough time has been devoted to finding RS for any of the subject BLPs. That’s it from me. I’m unwatching this page. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC) ^{Correction 05:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)}[reply]

@Atsme:, again they aren't Youth Olympic medalists!!! Fram (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for the independent sources on the Young article, which you claim is a "national sports notable" and "the coverage was not just local".

The Saint George and Sutherland Shire Leader is a local source
The Grafton Daily Examiner is a very local source
The Twoowomba Chronicle is a local source (slightly less local, but a purely passing mention of Young

These aren't national newspapers spending an article on Young, these are the local newspapers from close to her. Fram (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question / observation: When multiple local publications spread over a distance of over 1000 km, and across multiple states, report on the subject, does that not mean it is no longer local coverage? Aoziwe (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. When one is "local girl" (e.g. one born here) "has sporting success", and the other is "local girl" (e.g. one goes to school here) "has sporting success", then it is still local coverage even if the birth place and the school are far from each other. Now, if smallish (local/regional) newspapers without a locality link to the subject start covering the person in some detail as well, then you indeed get away from "local coverage" and get more widespread coverage; but that doesn't seem to be case here. Fram (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"it’s important that we not rush to delete verifiable national sports champions because of age (or gender)." Not because of gender, no, but because of age? Sure. Youth sports (and "master" sports) usually get a lot less coverage than the "senior" champions, so age categories are often a determining factor in distinguishing the notability of sportspersons. Similarly, the coverage of the Youth Olympics is minimal compared to the coverage of the regular Olympics. Someone like Jolie Sertorio only gets passing mentions as part of a team, but no significant coverage. There is no indication that she passes at the moment WP:YOUNGATH, and speculation that she may become a notable athlete (whih may well be true of course) are not relevant to a discussion on whether she should already have an article now. Fram (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability (sports) states: “...sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics).” There has been local, regional and internet coverage which, when combined, equates into national & international coverage of Young & Mathison, the latter of whom was team captain for the South Africa tour. Mathison won a silver medal in the state’s Under 21 team at the national championships in Sydney. Young won a silver medal at the Pacific School Games in Adelaide, and a gold medal in the state’s Under 18 team at the national championships in Launceston. Both qualified and participated in the Youth Olympics and their team placed 5th. I’ll add that when several different local and regional news sources from different areas, such as the Gladstone Observer, Sunshine Coast Daily and The Saint George and Sutherland Shire Leader write about an athlete, that is considered wide-spread independent coverage, see APN network. It doesn’t have to be the NYTimes or WaPo. Where in our PAGs does it say we discriminate against age? There is also no limit as to how many RS must be used, especially when an entire article is published about a single athelete as there has been in this case. Based on the aforementioned, I disagree that they don’t meet WP:N or GNG, but I’m just one voice. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 13:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But they haven't played "at the highest level (such as the Olympics)", they have played at youth levels. While impressive, this is not the highest level of the sport, the highest level is the senior level. Competing at the Olympics, the senior World Championships, that kind of thing makes on notable, independent of age or gender (excluding really, really minor sports where even the world championships get next to no coverage, but that's definitely not the case here). Playing in a team that wins a medal at the national U21 champs isn't an indicator of notability for any sport, in any country (except perhaps very few college sports in the US, but these aren't really age-based either technically). We don't discriminate based on age, we reflect the lesser importance most age-based sporting competitions have (be it u-18 or u-16 competitions, or Over-35s of the like); these competitions don't get the coverage the equivalent senior competitions get. Fram (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 16:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was included in WP:WikiProject Women's sport. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 16:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was included in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 15:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all ~~but Young~~ I am undecided on Young as there are a couple sources on her, but they don't go into much depth and they are local in nature leading to a possible WP:ROUTINE situation and those kinds of sources are specifically mentioned by WP:YOUNGATH as not meeting the requirement. The others however, I couldn't find any coverage that meets WP:GNG. YOUNGATH says nothing about Youth Olympics athletes being notable, YOUNGATH is more about when an athlete is not notable than it does for when an athlete is notable. I also suspect Youth Olympics coverage may vary widely by country, I don't think the average person in my country would even know they existed let alone the athletes. -DJSasso (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, is there enough out there to cobble together an article on the oz u18 team (presently no article, directs to Australia women's national field hockey team)? these players can then all be directed there, awaiting breakout into standalones when/if they become notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. -DJSasso (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bulk merge with redirects I support Coolabahapple's suggestion. Each player is not that notable in their own right (yet), except perhaps one, but the team and the player group together is. Aoziwe (talk) 11:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. No question the team qualifies as notable under GNG and past precedent for youth sports. Some of the players may be independently notable as well, maybe not all of them. This is a classic situation where notability exists, but because it's not something that is only recently getting mainstream coverage, the sources are not numerous. But taking the total picture, I see clear notability for the team. Montanabw^(talk) 18:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I don't see them meeting any notability guidelines or WP:GNG. Any coverage is local and routine. A suitable merge would be fine, though. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Competing at the Youth Olympics, even winning a medal there, does not meet any notability standard. Redirecting to an article on the team is a reasonable idea.Sandals1 (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This user appears to be a SPA, and participates only at AfD - see contribs and TP. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 16:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it was only at a single Afd that that might be an SPA but they have on numerous ones, that makes them a normal account who just prefers editing on deletion discussions. Though if they are found to be a sock in the investigation that could be a different story. -DJSasso (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete all. I didn't do any searching of my own, but I did look at all of the references in all of the articles included in this AfD. They all look like WP:ROUTINE, and thus fail WP:GNG. I wouldn't object to a redirect or merge somewhere, if there was an appropriate target, but I don't see one; the suggestion above, i.e. Australia women's national field hockey team seems like way to broad a topic. Redirecting there would leave the reader wondering why, since they're not mentioned there, and a merge would be WP:UNDUE. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no opinion on the merits of these seven specific cases, and have not yet run any media searches myself, but my impression is that NSPORTS is heavily biased towards male professional athletics, and is inappropriate for judging whether female amateur athletes are notable. Beyond the assumption that (senior) Olympians are automatically notable, I would be more comfortable defaulting to GNG in such cases. I am certainly not comfortable with comments like the one above by Sandals1 suggesting that lower-level amateur competitors are automatically non-notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Playing at the senior Olympics is normally considered sufficient to be notable; there seems to be no very good reason why playing at the Youth Olympics is not also considered notable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage for the senior Olympics is 100 times the coverage for the youth Olympics, which is a "very good reason". Fram (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, do you think 2019 World Seniors Championship is notable based on its coverage? We have articles for prior years. I also wanted to share the following link to a discussion I believe is relevant to this AfD, Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability is geared towards the white male perspective, in particular what was said here regarding sources. I don’t think we should let age or gender be our guiding influences here, or that we should discount the fact these young ladies qualified for and represented their country in the Olympics which is an international amateur event. They also competed internationally which is verifiable in the articles on the Olympics website. There are probably multiple articles about them in other languages that aren’t showing up in our English Google searches. It was certainly a notable enough event for the BBC to cover it live. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 06:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A. I don't see the relevance of whether an article I haven't edited, which is up at AfD where I haven't participated, about a tournament in another sport, with deletion arguments completely different to the ones here, is about a notable subject, for this discussion about persons. B. is about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, c. is about historical figures, and D. shows that the youth olympics get coverage, which I never denied. But there is quite a gap between a 1 hour highlights program, and the "BBC TV will broadcast more than 3,000 hours of coverage"[55] for the Rio 2016 Olympics, no? Finally, "There are probably multiple articles about them in other languages that aren’t showing up in our English Google searches." is highly, highly unlikely. The only non-English sources which may mention them are match reports from the countries they played against. The chance that there is a non-English, non-online source which has given significant attention to any of the 7 above listed persons is vanishingly small. "I don’t think we should let age or gender be our guiding influences here": no, we should let coverage, the verifiable existence of significant reliable sources about the subjects, be our guiding influence here. And such sources are absent so far for people like Jolie Sertorio. Fram (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I took the time to find sources for Young, Mathison and recently Duncan, and they meet the requirements for notability sports. I haven’t researched sources in other languages, but there is valid reason to believe they exist. The other team members may or may not have the sources necessary to warrant stand alone BLPs, I haven’t looked, but they do qualify as a team. I don’t agree that the notability bar should be raised to justify dismissal of the Young, Mathison and Duncan BLPs, as they are verifiable world class competitors who have been covered/featured in secondary and third party sources. The notability of the Youth Olympics is already established as a world class event. GNG has no age restriction for sports notability and it doesn’t specify that the gage by which athletes are measured must be the adult Olympics, or a specific competition or age division. The Youth Olympics is the equivalent of being the ultimate competition for that age division not unlike the World Seniors Championship (there’s the relevance you asked about) would be for over 50 athletes. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 09:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can repeat your belief that "I haven’t researched sources in other languages, but there is valid reason to believe they exist." as often as you want, doesn't make it true (or even in the slightest likely) though. And you might have noticed that the winner of last years world senior championships doesn't even have an article... Anyway, WP:YOUNGATH is an accepted part of WP:NSPORTS, so contrary to what you claim, sports notability does have an age indication. The notability of the youth olympics is not under dispute in itself, but you seem to claim that the youth olympics should be treated the same as the regular olympics, even though the two events have a completely different amount of coverage, attention from the general public, ... Please read e.g. WP:NTENNIS (another part of the NSPORTS guideline) for a comparable situation. Every player having played in the main draw of a Grand Slam (tennis) event is presumed notable. But "Junior players are presumed to be notable if they have won at least a junior Grand Slam title". Age discrimination? No, just a correct reflection of the completely different importance of both events, even though the junior grand slams in themselves are notable as well. Sports coverage outside local sources is 99% senior events (in nearly all sports), and 1% junior or master events. Our inclusion guidelines simply (and correctly) reflect that situation. Fram (talk) 09:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Fram, your argument is invalidated per Olympic_Games#Youth Games which are complements to the Olympics and should not be discounted. WP:SPORTBASIC applies here: ”...sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics).” They have competed in the highest level of their division of the Olympics, so notability has been met. Additionally, there are multiple RS covering & independently featuring the 3 athletes. Per WP:GNG: ”There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. I have already explained the RS coverage above. They are not subject to WP:YOUNGATH as I first believed because that section refers to high school/pre-high school competition. These girls are/have been competing as members of national/international teams and as members of the Australian Youth Olympic Team. They have been representing their respective states and their country, not their high school. We cannot/should not discriminate against them because of their age, especially 17-18 year olds who are high school grads and are entering or already attending college. I would not object to creating and merging them into an article titled 2018 Youth Olympics Australian Women’s Hockey Team (or the like) where they can each have their own section, then as they further their accomplishments, we can create the standalones. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you've misinterpreted WP:SPORTBASIC, as it does not say "the highest level of their division" or "of their age group"--it says "the highest level" (no qualifiers). There are numerous instances of medal winners in individual sports at the Youth Olympics having their articles deleted, not to mention those of athletes who just competed. This has happened multiple times in martial arts. Some medal winning examples are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davit Ghazaryan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Katheder, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kendall Yount (2nd nomination). Even tennis has at least one example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zheng Saisai, although her article was later recreated when she had some success as an adult. My point is that there is precedence and policy for discounting the Youth Olympics as it is not really the highest level of competition for any sport. Papaursa (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a neutral note (with disclosure that I started this AfD) about this issue of interpretation of BASICSPORTS at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Are the Youth Olympics part of the Olympics as intended in WP:SPORTBASIC?. Fram (talk) 08:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all As I said in my comment just above, none of the subjects appear to meet WP:NSPORT. Coverage is what you'd expect and is focused on being members of the Youth Olympic team. Like previous editors, I agree you may well be able to put together an article on the team, but individual articles are WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While they fail WP:NOLY, they may pass WP:GNG. For Naomi Duncan, I found this and this straight away, but would need more work to pass GNG. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Unless they have a Youth Olympics gold medal around their necks, these high school age athletes are generally not notable. Even with gold it can be iffy on some. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that in GNG or N(sports)? All that’s required for other international competitions and Olympic Games (which would include Youth) is participation. When Naomi Duncan was featured in The Women’s Game, she was “...part of the first ever Australian women Youth Olympic Games hockey 5s team” and referred to the 2018 YOG as “the Olympic experience”. The Youth Olympics are organized by the International Olympic Committee, so yes, the event is part of the Olympic Games, and I’ve already provided the verifiable sources to confirm. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 12:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not include Youth. It gives an example of (such as the Olympics). Whether we want to include the kids version is what this discussion is about. Participation is not nearly good enough. It's possible that a few might meet GNG, but those will be exceptions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the "kids" are 17 & 18 yo, and participated in Olympic level, world-class competition as the first ever women's field hockey team to represent Australia. Yes, they are notable, despite not getting as much media attention afforded young male athletes. Comparing the two creates a false equivalency, and the latter needs to be taken into consideration. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 19:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - As per User:Papaursa and User:Fyunck. The history of sport is littered with youth athletes who failed to make the grade at the highest level. Just competing in the Youth Olympics does not make you notable. Nigej (talk) 08:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fram - the Australian Olympic Committee selected these same young ladies to compete in the ~~32nd 2020 Olympiad in Tokyo~~ 2018 Youth Olympics - Women's Hockey 5s Team in Buenos Aries. I have been looking for more sources when RL permits, and found a few more sources. It's a slow process, but a UK publication appeared in one search, and so did Women's Sports Network. I have not had a chance to check for duplicates. Oh, and another plus for notability - the young ladies represent Australia's first Women's Hockey5s Youth Olympic Team. Do you have any objection to me creating a new article ( 2018 Youth Olympics Australian Women’s Hockey5s Team) as I mentioned above, and then we can spin-off individual articles, if warranted? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 03:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't see where Australia has selected its 2020 Olympic team yet. At this point the only women's field hockey team to qualify is the host (Japan). Of course, should any of the Youth Olympic players play in the 2020 Olympics they would be notable per WP:NOLY, but right now that's WP:CRYSTALBALL. Papaursa (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, my brain went to sleep. I struck the Japan games and corrected to the proper venue. My purpose was to further demonstrate that YOG is an Olympic event, and that Australia’s team was selected by the Australian Olympic Committee. I was just about to turn-off the lights & call it a night when the iPad pinged me back. I’ll resume looking for more RS tomorrow. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 05:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, feel free to continue discussing the notability based on sources, but your insistence that these should be considered automatically notable as Olympic athletes (and many other comments you made here) betrays a thorough misunderstanding of how sport competitions are structured and what is considered important by the athletes, the viewers and the media. E.g. the national soccer organisation of a country is responsible for all national teams, be it the senior team or the U14 team, and all of these play in international competitions. But even though U14 players who get selected for the national team will often get a short article in the local media, they get zero attention in national media (never mind international media), and are not notable. Everyone at the NSPORTS discussion so far has confirmed this, and it is the basis of WP:YOUNGATH as well. The Youth Olympics are not a part of the Olympic Games, they are a different oragnisation within the same structure, and for the sake of our notability guidelines they are not treated the same as the real Olympics, because they are not treated the same by reliable sources. You can continue defending your undefensible position, but it is fruitless to spend more time on it, or to consider it as evidence of age or gender discrimination on the part of enwiki. Fram (talk) 07:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It makes zero difference to me any longer. Do whatever, I'm done here. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 17:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all As Nigej says, competing in the youth olympics isn't a pass to notability. Articles can be restored if the people in question make it at full/senior level. Number 5 7 11:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Subjects do not meet WP:NSPORT and they are WP:TOOSOON. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G5. Along with being a serious WP:BLP violation in is original form, the article creator is evading a block. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asher Judah[edit]

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

BLP-violating tripe about a non-notable political candidate. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speedy even. Why? Almost everything. Aoziwe (talk) 11:55, 26 October 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 Blue Slide Park#Tour. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Slide Park Tour[edit]

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

WP:ROUTINE coverage only, fails WP:NTOUR --wooden superman 10:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NTOUR and WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blue Slide Park as it does not appear notable enough for a separate article, but it is a viable search term. Aoba47 (talk) 05:41, 28 October 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 Macadelic. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Macadelic Tour[edit]

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

WP:ROUTINE coverage only, fails WP:NTOUR --wooden superman 10:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NTOUR and the other coverage does not help it to meet WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Macadelic as it does not appear notable enough for a separate article, but it is a viable search term (and the album article mentions the tour already). Aoba47 (talk) 05:40, 28 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Mull (professional speaker)[edit]

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

No independent secondary sources, out of three ("about us" page, book on Amazon, event invitation). The publisher of the book at Amazon seems to be a self-publishing company and the first search result contains the snippet "Insight Publishing and its president David Wright are not only unethical, they are downright illegal!". I don't know if there are other sources about this person but a quick search showed his website, some primary sources, spoke.com and a few Wikipedia mirrors. Jc86035 (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:35, 27 October 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 12:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Divya Agarwal[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:BLP. Sheldybett (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur. Roles in music videos, participant in reality shows, not enough to meet WP:NACTOR or GNG. This just feels like PR for the reality shows. Ravensfire (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this page has been deleted multiple times previous for unambiguous promotion. A possible option here would be to move this to draft space, but frankly, it's just WP:TOOSOON for this person, even for a draft article. If this is deleted, the create protection should be put back in place. Ravensfire (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 23:43, 31 October 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 12:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kōshi Takeshita[edit]

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

Boilerplate rationale adapted from my previous AfDs of similar photographer articles (such as Keizaburō Saeki), which itself was largely borrowed from Cckerberos at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hideki Kasai. Keizaburō Saeki, Hideki Kasai, and this currently-nominated article are all identical bot-created articles. I have nominated several others for deletion, but have improved and de-orphaned quite a few more when sources have been available.

To quote Cckerberos: "This article is a generic stub, generated by a bot in 2007. It makes no specific claim to notability; it appears that similar stubs were created for every photographer listed in 328 Outstanding Japanese Photographers, all with the format "Name (years) is a renowned Japanese photographer" (compare the nominated article with Gen Ōtsuka, for example). Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography states that the sole criteria for inclusion in the book was to have a single photograph in the museum's permanent collection at the time the book was published. That doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE."

In addition to Cckerberos's excellent commentary, I'll note that I've done as thorough a WP:BEFORE check as possible for an English-speaker: Google searches of both the English and Japanese order of the English transliteration of his name. I have also checked the Japanese name. I also tried "Kōshiba Takeshita" as an alternate transliteration based on Google Translate. None of the English transliterations turned up anything of use. The Japanese characters brought up nothing of substance anywhere.

He does not appear in the reasonably thorough The History of Japanese Photography. The Japanese Wikipedia has no article about him, so there are no sources to be borrowed from it. I searched his Japanese name there and found nothing in any other article.

In the absence of reliable sources, we cannot verify that this person is notable, so the article, like many of the previous bot-generated photographers before it, should be deleted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nine prints of his are in the Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography, and he won an award in a photography biennale held in Tokyo in 1995 (so the 328 photographers book tells us, on page 194). If he were a Japanese "voice actor" of comparable notability, en:WP editors might want to create an article about him; but he's instead a non-trendy Japanese photographer, so they/we don't. Delete without prejudicing the fate of any future article about him. -- Hoary (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should just ping you to these when I make them. I always value your input and expertise, no matter if you're arguing for keep or delete. I just put up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ichirō Tanaka an hour or so ago, did you see it? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:01, 2 November 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. Close consensus is that the sources presented are insufficient to support NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rufus Omotayo Omoseyin[edit]

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

Footballer who seemingly fails WP:NFOOTY, GNG and WP:V. Most likely an autobiography. BlameRuiner (talk) 09:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keeps - has played in the NPFL (a fully-pro league) so meets WP:NFOOTBALL, per this. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 11:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Jogurney below; on further reflection, there isn't enough to show he meets NFOOTBALL, let alone GNG. Giant Snowman 13:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NFOOTY. Doesn't read like an autobiography to me but definitely needs improvement. SportingFlyer talk 02:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about footballer who may have played a handful (no more than 4) matches in the NPFL. I cannot verify any of these appearances in a reliable source (I found a match report of Lobi Stars match against Mountain Top which doesn't mention Rufus - though the linked Flickr caption above purports that he played in the match). I'm skeptical of the entire article as it suggests Rufus played in Romania's Liga I with Concordia, but all reliable sources have him playing for Concordia II (the reserve team) instead. Even if we take the Flickr photo caption as a reliable source (why?), I don't think one or four appearances in the NPFL without better sourcing qualifies as actually meeting the spirit of NFOOTBALL. The article miserably fails the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - This video appears to show Omotayo playing in the NPFL (it's under a different name, but it does appear on his LinkedIn profile). This article obviously needs quite a bit of work, but I think he meets WP:NFOOTY. 21.colinthompson (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think a YouTube video which purports to show him playing in two NPFL matches (it's impossible for me to confirm what these matches are, or if Rufus is actually participating) meets WP:V, and even if we accept that he played twice (or even four times), there is nothing to suggest this article could ever meet the GNG (yet other players who appear regularly in the NPFL have sufficient sourcing available to do so). Jogurney (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - on second consideration, I have to agree with Jogurney. The video isn't enough to meet NFOOTY, and we have no sourcing to meet GNG, so I've changed my !vote accordingly. 21.colinthompson (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per review from Jogurney. Govvy (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. In the form of an article about St. Nersess Armenian Seminary. Sandstein 12:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St. Nersess Theological Review[edit]

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

Journal is not individually notable. There are citation from other sources, but notability is not inherited. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You don't have to be a theologian to realize this journal is among the top publications in the field of Armenian Theology. The article is under-sourced, but a careful reading of the references in Scholar and books shows the journal's significance. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 12:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is currently no article on the St. Nersess Armenian Seminary, which publishes the journal. An option could be to create such an article and merge the material on the journal there. --Hegvald (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The journal isn't notable, but create St. Nersess Armenian Seminary and put the information there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Hegvald and Headbomb. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 14:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 08:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and repurpose Agree with Headbomb. Easiest way of doing this is to keep the article, edit it, and move it. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 26 October 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 Tool discography. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

72826[edit]

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

non-notable demo release, no independent coverage, fails WP:MUSIC RF23 (talk) 06:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 08:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At the very least, it should be retained as a redirect, because it’s a plausible search term, and reliable sources can confirm existence at least. (https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/tools-undertow-10-things-you-didnt-know-203956/) Sergecross73 msg me 01:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tool discography. It's true that the album received very little coverage from reliable sources in its own right. But it is an early work by a significantly notable band, so its title is a likely search term as mentioned by the previous voter. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per my comment above. Plausible search term at least. The discography is probably the best target for right now, though songs from it appeared on later releases, and if those releases were ever fleshed out more to include info on this release (like in a “background” type section) then it might make sense to change it. Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 2 November 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 12:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4-Player Bowling Alley[edit]

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

After doing a WP:BEFORE search, all I see is the video game's entry on some unreliable websites and some articles on Wikia. Doesn't have the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources required to pass WP:GNG. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 05:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 08:28, 26 October 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/SNOW keep Due to 10x WP:HEY expxansion - to 3000+ words - by Serial Number 54129 all the issues brought up are no longer applicable and let's dispense of the bureaucracy. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Becky Sharp (character)[edit]

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

Does this subject require an article of its own? I would argue no, it doesn't. Arguments: the section on Becky over at Vanity Fair is richer than this supposed "main" article, this article is short and ill maintained, with an eleven(!) year old unfixed sourcing template. Proposal: simply delete this, rescuing the few bits not already at Vanity_Fair_(novel)#Becky Sharp (Rebecca). Thx CapnZapp (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the nom self-identifies as not being a fan of mid-Victorian literature huh? That's OK, neither do I :) But I must advise that, whatever the state of the article (not, in itself, an argument for deletion of course), this is one of the most well-known books of its era—and Sharp in the protagonist. And, while fame =/= notability, this means that both the book generally and the character specifically have consistently been the subject of high-quality scholarship throughout the 20th-century, to this day, in a variety of disciplines.For example.
Crossings in Text and Textile, eds K. Joslin & D. Wardrop, Aesthetes and Decadents of the 1890s: An Anthology of British Poetry and Prose, K. Beckson, Comedy and Culture: England 1820-1900, R. B. Henkle, Virginal Sexuality and Textuality in Victorian Literature, ed. L. Davis, Andrew Davies, by S. Cardwell, Character Sketches of Romance, Fiction and the Drama, E. C. Brewer, Anthony Trollope: The Critical Heritage, ed. D. Smalley, Corporate Character: Representing Imperial Power in British India, 1786-1901, E. Kent, Laughter and Despair: Readings in Ten Novels of the Victorian Era, U. C. Knoepflmacher, The Victorian Novel, ed. H. Bloom, Victorian Literature and Culture, M. Moran, The Victorian Governess, K. Hughes, Precocious Children and Childish Adults: Age Inversion in Victorian Literature, C. Nelson, Rule of Darkness: British Literature and Imperialism, 1830-1914, P. Brantlinger, Aspects of the Novel, E. M. Forster, Transparent Minds: Narrative Modes for Presenting Consciousness in Fiction, D. Cohn, His and Hers: Essays in Restoration and Eighteenth-century Literature, A. Messenger, Little Red Readings: Historical Materialist Perspectives on Children’s Literature, ed. A. E. Hubler, Women & Cross Dressing 1800-19 ed. H. Bauer, Henry James and the Culture of Consumption, M. El-Rayess, The Cambridge Companion to the Literature of London, ed. L. Manley, The Art of Writing, F. M. Salter, The Garden Squares of Boston, P. S. Goodman, The Novel, M. Schmidt, A Gendered Collision: Sentimentalism and Modernism in Dorothy Parker's Poetry and Fiction, R. S. Pettit, The Cambridge Companion to Edith Wharton, ed. M. Bell, The Femme Fatale in Victorian Literature: The Danger and the Sexual Threat, J. Hedgecock, What's Hecuba to Him?: Fictional Events and Actual Emotions, E. M. Dadlez, Famous Last Words: Changes in Gender and Narrative Closure, ed. A. Booth and The Cambridge Paperback Guide to Literature in English, I. Ousby.
I suppose, If I have an actual point, it's that Becky Sharp should be, not so much deleted, but easilly a good article—and probably a featured one! Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 09:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:BEFORE and WP:MAD. Andrew D. (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's quite clear that there is sufficient in-depth coverage of the character in so many reliable sources (not to mention the prominent coverage from the recent Vanity Fair (2018 TV series)) that the article easily meets GNG. As we all agree that the need to improve an article is not grounds for deletion, that only leaves the question of whether the character should have a stand-alone article or be covered solely within the main Vanity Fair article. I note that it is common practice to create stand-alone articles for principal characters of literary works, so many precedents exist for this article. At 32K of readable prose, the Vanity Fair article is at the maximum size before considering moving to summary style, and the first topic to split out would undoubtedly be Becky Sharp. There's little point in redirecting this article only to re-create it at a future date. --RexxS (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do wish there were more sources in the article (if I knew more about the topic I'd add some) but notability isn't really in question here, per the sources above and this result. Vanamonde (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vanity Fair#Becky Sharp (Rebecca). The argument is not about WP:notability, but about whether there is any reason to have the separate article. I see none at present. The article has no sources other than the text of the book, so is entirely WP:original research making WP:TNT appropriate to its current state. If the section expands to the point where a separate article is appropriate, one can then be created. -- Qwfp (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

now has other sources:), Keep, plenty of sources out there to improve the article, as listed above (thanks Serial Number 54129), so meets WP:GNG, also WP:ARTN - "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." Coolabahapple (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SerialNumber54129 and Andrew D. I would have to agree that the nomination seems a failure of both WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:BEFORE. Aoba47 (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources in article and above. The nomination is based on opinions unrelated to WP:N. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 27 October 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Sweetener Sessions[edit]

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

WP:ROUTINE coverage only. Fails WP:NTOUR. --wooden superman 08:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find pages and pages of ghits for this tour. NTOUR is not very clear about what *exactly* it means by 'significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources'. We certainly have multiple reliable sources. Significance is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. I see absolutely no good purpose served by deleting the article; I really cannot fathom why anyone would bring this article to AfD, other than based on a pedantic deletionist reading of the rubric. By contrast, and given the huge popularity of AG, providing comprehensive details of her work seems most appropriate and useful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of which are just routine. The article is just a list of tour dates and a set list. This is WP:FANCRUFT which belongs on a fan site, not here, it isn't encyclopedic. --wooden superman 12:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Short tour by notable artist, has received appropriate coverage. Besides, a redirect would be more appropriate than a deletion. This article should be expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NTOUR by a longshot as evidenced in the background section.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't remotely satisfy the guideline. It's just routine coverage. How does this "show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms"? --wooden superman 14:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you reading the right article? The background section is just five disconnected sentences of random observations and factoids about the subject. Very little of substance is said. Sergecross73 msg me 16:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No discussion of style, setting, etc. For a good tour to compare see Experience + Innocence Tour, which was in a similar state, was deleted and waited for about a month after it was underway before it became an article. This is not ready yet. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but incompleteness is not a reason to delete the article. Sure, expansion is needed, but this mini-tour received sufficient coverage, reviews, confirmation of set lists, etc. Let it snowball! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer - Can you elaborate on this at all? Just looking at the article currently, I’m inclined to agree with Walter. Can you provide some specific content addition examples that would help satisfy WP:NTOUR? Also wild incompleteness is most certainly a valid reason for merging or redirecting, which would be a very possible outcome here, considering most would probably agree it’s at least a valid search term. Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Some sources here:

https://variety.com/2018/music/news/ariana-grande-sweetener-sessions-1202917136/
https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/8471419/ariana-grande-post-vmas-concert-nyc-recap
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/sep/05/ariana-grande-review-koko-london
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/la-et-ms-ariana-grande-fan-experience-20180827-story.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/ariana-grande-sweetener-sessions-fan-recording-phone-raindrops-tour-dates-a8511606.html
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/ariana-grande-details-intimate-sweetener-sessions-concerts-708392/ (announcement)

This is just a handful of references, but you can see performances have been reviewed by multiple WP-appropriate sources. These could be used to help flesh out the Background section, add attendance numbers, and add a Reception section. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was just a short series of concerts given at smaller venues, not a "concert tour" by Grande. It should be briefly described in her main article, but I don't think it needs to be a separate article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and doesn't need to have a separate article for every little event involving an artist. I would merge (if there is anything noteworthy that is not already mentioned in the main article) and redirect. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just looked at the cites in the article. None of them even verify that the concerts took place. They are all just announcements of a future concert. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're assessing all possible sourcing to determine notability, not just the handful of sources in the existing article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above discussion. It was a scheduled concert tour by a notable singer, with adequate sources provided. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by Another Believer. Aoba47 (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every Ariana performance gets coverage in many reliable sources, that doesn't mean each and every one of them needs an article. This is not the official tour that is supporting the album, its just a set of few live performances. The 5 sentence worth of content this article provides is easily accommodated at either the album article or List of live performances by Ariana Grande.--NØ 08:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course we don't need an article for every performance, but The Sweetener Sessions was a promotional tour that received sufficient secondary coverage. No need to worry about "official" tour status or not, we base notability on coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tours for major artists are encyclopedic.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is blatantly not the case, per WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:NTOUR which states "A tour that meets notability standards does not make all tours associated with that artist notable". --wooden superman 11:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bludgeon the process.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 11:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. Perhaps your comments would be better served addressing the questions you have been asked above. --wooden superman 11:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources provided push this past the WP:GNG threshold. feminist (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here Comes the Light[edit]

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

Full disclosure, I'm the original creator of this, 11 years ago when Wikipedia's notability criteria for albums was very different than it is today. Back then, the only notability claim an album had to have to qualify for an article was that a notable artist had recorded it — but our standards have been tightened up considerably since then, such that an album now has to show chart success, awards, influence on other artists and/or much more reliable source coverage than the one newspaper article this album actually has. And, in fact, the standards have been tightened up so much that even the artist who recorded it is now a redirect to his more notable band, rather than an independently notable solo artist — if his only claim of standalone notability was the existence of this one album (he hasn't released anything new since), but the album's only claim of notability is that he recorded it, then that falls afoul of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Bearcat (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has one source, but the album has received coverage in multiple sources ([56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]). --Michig (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I reviewed the sources that Michig provided, but none of these would be enough to establish notability: four of the six are just passing mentions of the album, and the two that are about the album are little more than a paragraph each. That's not really substantial coverage to meet WP:GNG, and with the artist's article no longer in existence, a merge or redirect target just doesn't exist to find an alternative to deletion. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Four of the above are reviews of the album in reliable sources - these are not passing mentions. --Michig (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. 1: A review, but only a paragraph. Who publishes this site, and are they a reliable source?
2. 2: Same site. Also only one paragraph.
3. 3: Also a review, but even less of a paragraph.
4. 4: Barely mentions the album.
5. 5: This is the best one I've seen; three paragraphs, though not much about the album.
6. 6: Tiniest review and paragraph.

Is this significant coverage? Red Phoenix ^talk 21:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Michig (talk) 08:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Literally every album that exists can always show a couple of reviews in alt-weeklies and music magazines — so if the existence of a couple of album reviews were enough in and of itself to clinch an album's notability, there would never be any such thing as a non-notable album at all anymore. If the album already had some stronger notability claim, such as charting or winning an award, then these reviews would be fine — but for the existence of album reviews to constitute a notability claim, it would take either (a) a volume of review content that significantly outstripped what most other albums could also show (which the number of reviews you've provided does not), or (b) reviews which contextualized that the album was an important artistic achievement for reasons beyond simply existing, such as pioneering an important and influential musical innovation. Andrew Rodriguez does have one album under his belt that's got a strong enough notability claim to warrant an encyclopedia article — but that album is Bring Yourself Up, not this. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a flaw in your argument "Literally every album that exists can always show a couple of reviews in alt-weeklies and music magazines" - it simply isn't true. --Michig (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it simply is. Not every album necessarily gets reviewed in Rolling Stone, granted, but virtually every album that gets released on a real record label always gets reviewed somewhere, with the only possible exceptions being purely independent self-released material. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 27 October 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) Flooded with them hundreds 17:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetener World Tour[edit]

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

Routine coverage only. Fails WP:NTOUR --wooden superman 07:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with WP:ROUTINE, also WP:V. However, since when it does start it will almost certainly become instantly notable, perhaps WP:INCUBATE/ userfy per WP:ATD until next March? And keep the title as a redirect to the album. ——SerialNumber54129 08:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to assume it would instantly become notable just because of who she is. Musicians tour all ther time. There are already way too many articles for non-notable tours. --wooden superman 12:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with Serial Number 54129. Let's incubate it until the tour either starts or is cancelled. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "since when it does start it will almost certainly become instantly notable" we might as well keep it. I think WP:IAR will back me up on this. It seems to me a wholly pointless pedantic waste of everyone's time to bring this to AfD. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Ssilvers summed up the circumstances better than me: ...until the tour either starts or is cancelled; I didn't take the latter into account. So keeping as it is is not an option: we can't have an article in mainspace telling nothing about a subject which may or may not happen. ——SerialNumber54129 10:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course. Major tour by notable article, has received coverage and more is guaranteed. Besides, a redirect would be more appropriate than deletion. This is a waste of editors' time. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has been covered by USA Today and Billboard. Concert tours usually warrant their own articles when the artist is notable. Sure, there's not much info now, but there'll be more as that develops.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 13:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a false statement. Concert tours do not usually warrant their own articles when the artist is notable. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. See WP:NTOUR: "A tour that meets notability standards does not make all tours associated with that artist notable." --wooden superman 14:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't inherited notability. This tour is established as being notable on its own (through the inclusion of refs by Billboard and USA Today).—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does WP:ROUTINE coverage establish this tour as being notable? See specific criteria at WP:NTOUR, particularly "Sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability". --wooden superman 14:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and claiming that a tour is notable because the artist is notable is textbook WP:NOTINHERITED ("The artist is famous, so the album is notable"). --wooden superman 14:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Woodensuperman, you've made your case, and not you're just repeating yourself. Time to let other editors share their thoughts. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm repeating myself it's because everyone is repeating the same mistakes about the guidelines. --wooden superman 14:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is more than just routine coverage.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not even remotely. It's an announcement of a tour, nothing more. --wooden superman 14:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It talks about her newest music which'll also be performed at the tour. That's more than routine coverage that merely established a tour'll happen.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you think that's significant coverage of the tour? Wow. --wooden superman 14:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's more that can be said than just tour dates. If you still disagree, a merge/redirect would've been a much more plausible option than deletion.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in response to claiming that a tour is notable because the artist is notable is textbook WP:NOTINHERITED, notice I said "usually", a key word you missed in my keep rationale (which should've already made it clear that I didn't mean all cases).—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did say "usually" in my first rebuff of your statement. --wooden superman 14:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's a major tour by a more than noteable artist with 42 dates announced and more confirmed to be coming at a later date. It definitely warrants its own article, insisting on waiting until it starts is a complete waste of time, there's no point in deleting the article now only to reinstate it in less than 5 months. Fan4Life (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Fan4Life; that's why even the article's creator supports a redirect. ——SerialNumber54129 14:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to me? If so, that's not true. I support keeping the article. I said redirecting is more appropriate than deleting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know, you said. So: you support redirection. ——SerialNumber54129 15:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't support redirecting. I support keeping. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough sources to support notability. Likely WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that drafitfy would be the best option as I believe it falls under the category of WP:TOOSOON, though it could be recreated once the tour starts. Aoba47 (talk) 02:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough references in the article to make it notable.2600:1702:AB0:D890:C171:F460:6B53:7736 (talk) 06:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Public Health Film Festival. Deleted first, due to copyright issues. Black Kite (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Public Health Film Competition[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage. No indication this film competition is notable.Had previously existed as a redirect which is probably the correct alternative to deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first and only International Public Health Film Competition that we know of, with transparent scoring criteria. The latest edition of the competition had over 550 film submissions from 72 countries. These facts make the competition 'notable' and worth an entry in to Wikipedia. Article has been update with further information. Kind regards, Uthoang (talk) 08:37, 26 October 2018 (GMT)

Comment this copyvio report indicates significant copy/pasting from a copyrighted source (The website the content has been copied from states: Copyright © 2018 Public Health Film Society. All Rights Reserved) Polyamorph (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of performing arts[edit]

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

Just a list of articles which are repeated in the Categories section Robynthehode (talk) 06:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plainly it could be written up in more detail, but there is a solid topic here, and there is wide precedent for "outline of" articles. These are not redundant to categories as they present a synoptic page view divided by type, all visible at once (unlike even the best category hierarchy). The article needs writing up but editing is not a reason for AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Outline articles are a central part of the structure of the encyclopaedia. They are linked right on our top level contents page. SpinningSpark 12:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Plainly it could be written up in more detail, but there is a solid topic here, and there is wide precedent for "outline of" articles. Scope of article will be expanded. per WP:PRESERVE. A highly likely search term. No compliance with WP:Before, which should be the first hurdle before deletion. Clearly is improvable per section (C). Many sources at Google, Google books, Google scholar, and HighBeam Research. Article can (and should) be improved; but that is no reason by itself to delete it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:16, 29 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dov Rosenberg[edit]

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

There are at least three problems with this autobiography. First, it is an autobiography, the submission of which is strongly discouraged. Second, its purpose appears to be not to describe the subject neutrally but to describe the subject's views. Third, neither this autobiography nor a Google search shows biographical notability as defined by substantial independent attention. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Highly promotional, but more importantly, searches did not turn up enough in-depth references from independent, reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Qualifies for WP:G11. Author should be blocked for WP:SPAMNAME. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:39, 4 November 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarkodie Atta Philip[edit]

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

Non-notable individual with no significant coverage in reliable sources. First 4 sources and not reliable and there is no mention of the subject in the last 3 sources. Fails WP:CREATIVE and general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very clearly non-notable, and lacks sources to change that situation.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article even hints that he meets WP:CREATIVE. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xanax (band)[edit]

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

No evidence provided of notability Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for refs but all are about the medication. They are a Serbian band yet no article in Serbian. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - about all this article says is that Xanax is a Serbian band from Belgrade and lists their discography. It does not have references. About all that a Google search for Xanax finds is articles related to a medication called Xanax. Vorbee (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BAND. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:BAND #1:
- Miloš Pavlović (5 June 2012). "Xanax – Ispod površine (2012)". Balkanrock portal. album recension
- Predrag Novković (11 May 2012). "XANAX Ispod površine". PopBoks. album recension
- "Xanax". Exit festival. 2012. band history, played on Exit festival
- Nataša Milojević (31 December 2016). "Sana Garić ulazi u Novu godinu sa novim albumom Svet za nas". interview with the frontman re her solo album
- "Sana Garić: Medije zanimaju samo lake note i golotinja". PopBoks. 11 May 2012. Interview with Sana Garić re concert in Belgrade Youth Center
- "Koncert: XANAX". Belgrade Youth Center. 11 May 2012. announcement of said concert
- "Xanax - "Reč iz filma" (VIDEO)". B92. 18 July 2013. short article re their reč iz filma single.

No such user (talk) 14:43, 26 October 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-deletion (G7). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The History and Fall of Caius Marius[edit]

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

Hi I created an article on the same topic and as the creator of this draft, I would like it to be deleted. Boothsift (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral comment You can apply a WP:G7 tag to the top of the page (this would be for WP:MFD anyways). Nate • (chatter) 02:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done as I was typing this, so throw up the close tag and call this done. Nate • (chatter) 02:54, 26 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wests Illawarra Aquatic Swim Club[edit]

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

Promotional article, very poorly sourced, which searches turn up virtually no in-depth coverage in independent sources. Was deprodded without improvement. Has produced 2 notable swimmers, but notability is not inherited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this looks like a puff piece for a few notable athletes that were once members of the club, most of the content belongs on the individual athletes articles. The club itself however does not have any significant sources to assert notability on its own. Ajf773 (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the club has produced notable swimmers, which makes it notable. Legacypac (talk) 03:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC){{}}[reply]

Comment - please remember that notability is not inherited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited and a few notable swimmers having swum there does not cut it. However, if the club has, for example, a specific talent spotting, recruitment and development program (which can be secondary referenced) which (frequently) produced these swimmers and of such a standard then that would make it notable. 95% of the current article is not about the club but about the swimmers and this content belongs with the swimmers' articles, not here. Aoziwe (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Weak because I only looked at the sources in the article and didn't do any research of my own. But, all those sources are either to other wikipedia articles (not a WP:RS), or to the WIASQ's own website, or to articles about specific swimmers, not the club. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:35, 4 November 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.