Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 September	9 September >

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 merge to Delta 4. After discarding the sock arguments, it looks like the bulk of the arguments favours a selective merge to the developer article owing to a scarcity of GNG-usable sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho Killer (video game)[edit]

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

Article has previously been deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psycho Killer (video game). I'm not particularly familiar with Wikipedia:Notability (video games) criteria, but my impression is that "significant coverage" is lacking. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. wbm1058 (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)*[reply]

*Strong Keep. The article contains 3 reliable secondary sources, which are all reviews from gaming magazines, which were very popular at the time. This passes WP:GNG. The Duke^{Talk page, please ping me anywhere else.} 22:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see only three secondary sources. --Izno (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to developer. I see three reviews, each a paragraph long. That wouldn't be enough to do justice to the topic without resorting to primary sources. Summarize the essence within the parent article. If more sources show up in the future, can always split summary style. The reviews:
- https://archive.org/stream/amigaformatmagazine-032/Amiga_Format_Issue_032_1992_03_Future_Publishing_GB#page/n26/mode/1up
- https://archive.org/stream/amigaformat39/AmigaFormat039-Oct92#page/n37/mode/1up/
- https://archive.org/stream/Amiga_Joker_1991-10_Joker_Verlag_DE#page/n57/mode/1up/
- Couldn't find "Amiga Magazine". Is it supposed to be "CU Amiga Magazine"? If so, here's issue #19 but didn't see the title in the ToC.

(not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 11:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*@Czar: I have sorted out your comments about "Amiga Magazine". I have a question though, this article contains 4 magazine reviews for the CDTV port of the game. Is that enough for notability? Thank you. The Duke^{Talk page, please ping me anywhere else.} 14:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's less about count than whether we can do justice to the topic based on that sourcing. These "reviews" are each barely a paragraph long. Everything that needs to be said about the game (based on secondary sourcing) can fit in two paragraphs within the parent/dev article. That's how I would cover it until more sources with greater depth on the topic are uncovered. czar 19:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:The Duke of Nonsense has been indentified as a sockpuppet of User:HowToDoLife. ^{[Username Needed]} 11:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I have struck the comments by the page creator as they were evading a block. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep certainly it's on the very low end of meeting GNG, but a merge would be UNDUE for the game developer since they appear to have developed several notable games. Even if the article is reduced to two paragraphs, that is enough for a separate article Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then merge proportionately? We judge whether separate articles are needed based not on how many paragraphs we can theoretically write but on the amount of source content. In this case, the game has a small paragraph overview in four games magazines. By no measure is that significant coverage. czar 01:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets minimum RS requirements. Phediuk (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How? czar 12:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to developer per czar. JOE BRO 64 14:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge per czar as an alternative to deletion. Such short reviews are hardly enough to hang a whole article on, but we can reflect the information in the developer page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:26, 15 September 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. Renaming can be addressed through normal editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths[edit]

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

list of links, no actual content. unsure if would work as diambig page Humsorgan (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 22:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Lists of deaths. Lists of lists are valid for navigational purposes. Ajf773 (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Ajf773. Actually some of the entries are lists of lists, making this a list of lists of lists. SpinningSpark 23:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ...and add to List of lists of lists. SpinningSpark 23:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename as above. Reasonable navigational list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename everything seems fine to me, could be improved by renaming to Lists of deaths, List of lists of deaths, or Lists of notable deaths etc... I also agree that once kept, it should be added to the List of lists of lists.Grapefruit17 (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Perfectly fine start to a list-of-lists that would be useful for navigational purposes. It can be expanded with items from the category of death-related lists. XOR'easter (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is plainly a valid navigation page. I am not convinced it matters whether the page is named "list" or "lists", so I have no opinion on whether it should be moved. James500 (talk) 04:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A list of notable lists. Rename to "lists of" seems plausible.Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per others above. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 15:57, 12 September 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Coretheapple (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Town (novel)[edit]

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

Young adult novel on the Scopes "Monkey" Trial by a non-notable author. Article was created by an SPA seven years ago and I'm surprised it's lasted so long, as it fails WP:GNG and WP:BKCRIT. I did find a Kirkus review, not cited in the article, but nothing else. Coretheapple (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coretheapple, I've done some digging and found quite a few reviews, enough to where it should pass NBOOK now. It also looks like it's used in a few classrooms and is often used as an example of books of this type in journal articles like this. It did take some definite digging, though. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ReaderofthePack OK, I'm withdrawing it. Nice work! All I could find initially was Kirkus. Ordinarily any reviews, especially Kirkus, are to be found on the publisher's page and on Amazon. However, not in t his case. Coretheapple (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per ReaderofthePack who has done a good job finding reviews and writing a reception section, demonstrating that it meets WP:BKCRIT. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:33, 9 September 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. IAR close.See Pg.447 at this official document, published by ECI. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 13:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ramakant Yadav (politician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL – He never won any election. AaronWikia (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article is poorly written enough that I can easily see how somebody could get a very mistaken impression of what notability claim it's actually making, he actually has held an WP:NPOL-passing office: he represented Azamgarh in the Lok Sabha (the Parliament of India) from 1996 to 1998, from 1999 to 2008 and from 2009 to 2014. It needs some improvement, yes, but the notability and sourceability are there. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat, passes WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 06:40, 12 September 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) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copy (written)[edit]

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

Unsourced dictionary definition, tagged as such since December 2009. Probably no content worth merging into other articles. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Looks like I started the article in question way back in 2004 and that was when I first started editing Wikipedia. I'm not really familiar with the policies/guidelines about dictionary defs. One thing voters on this matter might be interested to look at is the second edit in the article's history which was my apparent attempt to avoid the article being a dictionary definition. I'm not saying it's any good! I'm just offering the idea that it may be plausible to save the article from being a simple dic-def. I would also say that I don't know what the policies/guidelines are on having articles link to a dic-def (presumably to Wiktionary) and when/how an article can usefully link to a dic-def to help another article's reader. But I'm not going to be angry if the article is deleted if that's the consensus. I have gone the great majority of the time these last years with no involvement with Wikipedia at all although, by happenstance, I did take to checking my Watchlist semi-regularly again a week or two ago. Also, please forgive if the formatting of my contribution here isn't up to scratch. By all means put this edit into a more suitable format if it helps keep this page tidy without changing the meaning of my contribution. --bodnotbod (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a dictionary definition; it's a stub – see WP:DICDEF, which explains the difference. The topic is notable and so can readily be expanded from sources such as Translation of Thought to Written Text While Composing; Broadcast News Writing, Reporting, and Producing; How Advertising is Written--and Why; On the Art of Writing Copy. Andrew D. (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like what I'd expect to find in a dictionary, except perhaps a bit more detailed. If it's in fact a stub, then the theory is that it could later be expanded into a proper encyclopaedia article. But it's hard for mew to imagine what that article might be like, other than an WP:OR-filled essay on the technique of copy-writing. What else is there to say about it? And why hasn't someone said it, these 14 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDemeanour (talk • contribs) 11:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this used to be a commonly used newspaper term. It seems likely there are many guides covering what copy is and how to write it. I am not offering to improve it, but I believe it is possible. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. Capable of expansion beyond a definition. James500 (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some information to show that it can be expanded. I might be able to contribute more once I find more materials. - Darwin Naz (talk) 04:20, 14 September 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 DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scad (fraud)[edit]

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

I think this article should be deleted.

In the first ten pages of google search results for the term 'scad', I have found nothing about scam ads. As far as I can see, the only source for the term is the website of the Alliance Against Bait and Click, a defunct body whose website is also defunct, and now only exists in internet archives. It looks as if they've invented the term to promote their campaign. AABC itself is apparently not notable, and probably never has been. There are no citations in the existing article that show the term being used by anyone, other than AABC. I seriously doubt that anyone searches for the term 'scad' expecting to be delivered to an article like this one.

There are scores (well, 'scads') or articles about various kinds of spam and internet abuse. If this subject-matter doesn't already replicate content in one of those articles, there may be something in this article that could be merged elsewhere.

I don't want to delete it myself, because it's been around since 2009, and no-one has tried to delete it or nominated it in those nine years; I think it should be discussed, at least a bit. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, topic is covered at Ad fraud and this is a non-notable neologism per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable portmanteau. Ad fraud is a bit different (and an awful article), but Malvertising is basically the same thing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above.BabbaQ (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already covered on other article. Sdmarathe (talk) 02:57, 15 September 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. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sudarshan Venu[edit]

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

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable entrepreneur. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP and / or not independent of the subject's company. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Created by Special:Contributions/Giutella with few other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although his mother meets GNG, he does not and notability is not inherited. A businessman, nothing shown of lasting notability, per WP:BIO; trivial. Kierzek (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Between this, this and the general coverage of his role as Joint MD in Google News, plus tidbits in publications such as this, I think there may be enough written about the guy to warrant an article. It needs to be written by an editor without Giutella's paid conflict of interest, but it could exist. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two countering votes. Needs a better consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The second instance of placement of a biography of this person from a new WP:COI account. (This time with the familiar pattern of 2 userpage edits followed by 9 quick edits, then upload the commissioned article.) The coverage of the subject and his place in the family business is largely that which was available when considering the previous AfD, with the addition of some routine coverage of company reorganisation. Clearly a man-with-a-job, but I don't see sufficient coverage to change my opinion from the July 2017 AfD.AllyD (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to TVSMOTORS--I am fairly unsatisfied with the levels of coverage.JMD of a reputed business-outlet but nothing beyond that, yet.∯WBG^converse 13:41, 11 September 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. Seems like there are legit doubts about whether the only source discussed here is reliable enough to satsify GNG criteria, and no other keep argument has been advanced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shuang Sheng[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:NMUSIC Yoninah (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing that suggests importance. Freetheangels (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of reliable sources that could help establish notability. Lorstaking (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question Some of the sources appear to be reliable Chinese language sources (not the QQ one of course) - I just want to verify that WP:NOTE doesn't require English language sources. Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, I'd suggest that Qiluwanbao probably constitutes a reliable source for Chinese entertainment content. Simonm223 (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is my understanding that RS can be in any language. Pinging Narutolovehinata5 to confirm that Qiluwanbao is RS. Yoninah (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I am not fluent in Chinese and I am not familiar with Chinese sources, I can't really be of much help here. With that said, I am unsure if Qiluwanbao is a reliable source: their website in the bottom has a message that translates to "Some of the content on this website comes from the Internet. If the media, company, company or individual claims intellectual property rights to this part, please call or write to us. ", implying that they merely aggregate stories from other websites. Secondly, said page appears to read like a tabloid article, so even is Qiluwanbao was reliable (not that the said article appears to use as its source a certain "China Network"), considering this is a BLP, I'm not sure if it can be used anyway. At the moment, I have no opinion on the other sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks @Narutolovehinata5: Mandarin is my third language and I'm not... great... at reading Chinese so I missed that on the Qiluwanbao source. That was the only notability question I had.
Delete This artist doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG standards, let alone WP:NMUSIC Simonm223 (talk) 14:45, 13 September 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. There is consensus to keep. Whether or not to merge the content elsewhere is an editorial decision that can be discussed on the article's talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs, etc. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Species of Allosaurus[edit]

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

Allosaurus lucasi has been recently described, and Carpenter (1998) notes that Felch discovered an Allosaurus the size of the Epanterias holotype and Saurophaganax at the Allosaurus type locality, and discussion of Allosaurus species is mentioned in Allosaurus article. Extrapolaris (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support it's not only largely unnecessary but also wholly inadequate. Surely we don't want to suggest the possibility of eight valid species of Allosaurus? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is this listed as an AfD for "PageName"? I assume this is meant to be for Species of Allosaurus? Tera TIX 02:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nb. I fixed the errors in this nomination herein (diff) and on the article page (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the premise of this ADF is not adequate, this should be merged with Allosaurus at most, not deleted. All the information is relevant, the question is just where to place it. FunkMonk (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly a good summary of the supposed species of Allosaurus. A section in the main article would be better to start from scratch. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 04:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be much easier to use the text present in this article and just cut it down, it already has the sources and links. Remember, someone has to actually do the work, and I doubt anyone will volunteer to rewrite this from scratch any time soon (though that might have been the hypothetically best solution), so we have to be realistic and take what we can get. In any case, none of the arguments presented so far are valid reasons for deletion; the information has to be present on Wikipedia in some form or another, and there are no notability or reliability issues. And for the sake of saving revision history, this GA should be redirected, not deleted (just like what happened to species of Psittacosaurus). FunkMonk (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another point, this article was split off from the main Allosaurus article way back in 2007 when articles were split left and right because of byte size and consequent loading issues, which is not much of a problem with modern Internet. Dinosaur articles written today would easily have accommodated the same amount of text, so I see it more as two parts that have to be put back together. FunkMonk (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, merge or delete, it should not exist as it currently does as a separate article of its own. Also, cutting down what we have won't work, the issue is that it's an insufficient summary of the situation altogether. Cutting down would quite likely make this even worse. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 05:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A start could be relocating usable text from here to the Allosaurus article, while making sure it is not redundant. Then when that is done, the species article can just be redirected, as happened to Species of Psittacosaurus. No point in deleting ten years of revision history for no apparent reason. FunkMonk (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with FunkMonk. Deletion would violate WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:R, because this could be merged and redirected to Allosaurus. No comment on notability at this time. James500 (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with no impediment to merging through normal editing. I'm not really seeing the argument, or the benefit, of deletion. There are a few vague claims like the page is "inadequate" without really explaining why. I'm seeing no recent discussion on the talk page or attempt to fix the perceived problems in the history. So why not do those things? I'm at a loss to understand the policy rationale being invoked here. SpinningSpark 13:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are no qualifiers in the nomination that demonstrate a need for deletion; comes across as a merge proposal. Better off discussed on the article talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep without prejudice per SpinningSpark. James500 (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per Spark and FunkMonk. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AfDing a GA article? If there is any scope for discussion here, it is regarding a merge.Icewhiz (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Reading the above discussion, it's obvious outright deletion is a poor choice, but I still think that there's absolutely no reason to have this poor article separated from the main Allosaurus article. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 22:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic is entirely valid and the article perfectly adequate and a GA as well. It could be merged with Allosaurus but that is an FA and I doubt the folk there will want to incorporate the material into their polished article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now – clearly straight-up deletion is not justified. A merge is a possibility, but there's no harm in an extended discussion on the talk page rather than a hasty decision at an AfD. Tera TIX 13:28, 9 September 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) 01:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sa'd[edit]

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

Unsourced, no modern settlement by this name there today. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the current lack of sourcing and minimal content. However, if sources are provided to confirm that this town exists now or existed in the past, I would reconsider this recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless uncited three-word article of dubious accuracy. Softlavender (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 12 September 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. czar 12:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chantilly (fragrance)[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Both sources are merely directory entries. TheLongTone (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another unbelievably short stub about a topic that doesn't meet WP:GNG. Along with that, both it's "sources" are just links to online fragrance stores.Grapefruit17 (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unable to find any reliable secondary sources, so the subject fails WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:12, 9 September 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. czar 12:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mikee Plastik[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:ARTIST. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. No indication of awards or charted songs. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any guideline for which this individual qualifies. There are many "sources" in the article, but several of them do not mention him at all, none contain significant coverage, and none are reliable sources. I spent a long time searching for sources, and the only thing I could find that might be significant coverage (doubtful) in an unquestionably reliable source (a major regional newspaper) was info about their arrest for vehicular homicide. There's just nothing here deserving of an article.Jacona (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like the above commenters I wasn't able to locate any significant, reliably sourced coverage of this person. The article seems self-promotional and the claimed evidence of notability is tenuous (e.g. collaborating with "a former touring stage performer from U2"... who isn't even named). Camerafiend (talk) 18:16, 10 September 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. czar 12:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Linfesty[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E (meets all three conditions: 1. Linfesty has no previous RS coverage, 2. he did not seek publicity with his actions, and 3. his role in the rally was not significant, i.e. wasn't him speaking, he didn't interrupt the rally etc.). Coverage is also not persistent after some 12 hours after the fact (WP:TOOSOON at best, but probably simply WP:NOTNEWS).

This was a contested PROD with the edit summary "Notable viral video with tons of sources", but I note that the article is about the person, not the video, so that point is not relevant. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And the reason a redirect and conversion to an article about the video didn't happen, or moving it to userspace to wait until we are more certain of the notability is....? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't agree with the page creator's assessment that the video is notable nor do I think that non-trivial future coverage is likely given the nature of the event. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~ – Meets WP:GNG with articles from the following national sources: The Washington Post, CBS News, Time Magazine, CNN, Newsweek, Daily KOS, Business Insider, USA Today, plus several large local sources including The Miami Herald, The Seattle Times, The Billings Gazette, and about another 40 total (national and local) I didn't add. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 23:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote to Weak Delete – Though my above points are valid, I think WP:BLP1E may override this per all below comments. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Redditaddict69: Per WP:BLP1E - "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article" AusLondonder (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as creator, topic meets notability guidelines as an individual unintentionally making news headlines by facial expressions of disgust, basically sticking out like a sore thumb behind the controversial US President; with significant coverage in secondary sources: USA Today, Chicago Tribune, The Hill, etc. Something in his mind made him make these unenthusiastic facial expressions. Topics don't necessarily have to become notable based on a deliberate act or reason; songs, artwork, catchphrases, viral videos and discoveries can sometimes happen unplanned, then make headlines or trend on social media. Tinton5 (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator standards. This is a biography page not an event. Theres no personal achievement here. This reads like a singular event that received mild coverage for about a day and will fade away by the weekends end. We have no idea what this person will do for the rest of their lives, I highly doubt this constitutes a viral sensation that will stand the test of time and be viewed tens of millions of times on youtube. There are many more newsworthy events that trigger millions of views over a week and never receive a wiki article. This seems ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.239.23 (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. mere WP:BLP1E. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, prototypical BLP1E. Sam Sailor 10:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I really don't see this having any sort of lasting notability. Americanfreedom (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This individual is a classic case of WP:BLP1E. Several editors are advocating for keep on the basis of the sources yet BLP1E makes very clear that "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article" - notability must be lasting, and not only in the context of standing behind a political leader and making funny faces. AusLondonder (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Getting a momentary blip of coverage for making faces behind the president just makes him a WP:BLP1E, not a person who's earned permanent inclusion in an encyclopedia yet. If he manages to parlay his 15 minutes of fame into something more in the future, like running for a notable political office and winning, then that'll be another story — but our role here is not to maintain an article about every single person who happens to get his name into the news cycle for a day or two, it's to maintain articles about people who pass the ten-year test for enduring notability. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 14 September 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. czar 12:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Kolanovic[edit]

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

A run-of-the-mill business executive, currently a team leader at JP Morgan. I do not see how he passes WP:N. Ymblanter (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed "He developed new theories of elementary particle physics.", but I agree this reads like an advert. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems to be a non-notable financial analyst, very briefly mentioned in financial publications but no in-depth coverage exists.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not appear to meet criteria of WP:N or WP:ANYBIO. Also, this same article was only recently deleted just a couple of days ago. —Madrenergic^talk 06:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Often quoted as JPMorgan's quant guru by business newspapers, but I find no significant coverage to write an actual biography. WP:BASIC is not met. The article was speedy deleted under A7 on 7 September, and recreated in main space the next day. Sam Sailor 11:36, 10 September 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. Although some rewriting may be warranted still based on the comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese swords in fiction[edit]

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

Mostly unreferenced essay of original research. Of the 6 sources:

Very likely RS, but for real-world background in a book that very likely does not discuss Japanese swords in fiction.
A page on a site that sells replica swords. Mentions popular culture only in the last sentence. Dubious reliability.
Primary source for an example, for a sentence that lists other examples.
A 2005 press release for an English translation of Rurouni Kenshin for a statement about a specific fictional weapon in that work.
Passing mention of the example in an academic paper about something else.
Primary-source episode guide.

In other words, none discuss the topic in depth. No other attempt to establish notability is made, and the topic appears to fail WP:GNG. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I created this article 12 years ago as a way of removing anime, manga, and film discussions from the katana article, where I didn't think they belonged. I really don't care if this article is deleted or not, as long as deletion doesn't cause anime/manga content to be gradually re-added to the katana article. --JHP (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it is that Wikipedians like to write about stuff they care about. Some Wikipedians care about katanas in fiction—perhaps more than care about real katanas. If they don't have this article as an outlet for their interests, they may start writing about anime, manga, and film katanas in the katana article again, which should be about real katanas. So this rather junky "Japanese swords in fiction" article exists solely as a way of protecting the more important katana article from the junk. Perhaps Wikipedia has better procedures for keeping junk out of articles in 2018 than it did in 2006. (Not sure.) Just please be aware of the potential unintended consequences if voting to delete this article. Thanks. --JHP (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per general cultural knowledge, I think it's quite obviously a notable topic - i.e. there should be sources out there that would establish notability, if anyone cares to go find them. That would be better than wiping out the article. K.Bog 06:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A couple books that may be useful in improving this article:

Gun and Sword: An Encyclopedia of Japanese Gangster Films 1955-1980
The Films of Akira Kurosawa

Additionally, there may be some academic articles about the topic. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles can be improved, topic is notable. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I certainly don't think it's a stretch to call this a notable topic, I would also agree that the article needs better citation and is an unreferenced WP:OR essay. To delete it would be to delete an article covering a notable topic with potential to be a just as good as anything else on Wikipedia. Basically, it needs work.Grapefruit17 (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NUKEANDPAVE. There is nothing of value in this version of the article. None of the sources talk about Japanese swords in fiction, but rather are just a synthesis of random sources about anime and swords. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is actually a reasonably well organized article, appropriately dealing in an encyclopedic manner with material that would otherwise be dispersed among inappropriate trivia sections. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 16 September 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 Withdrawn by proposer. (non-admin closure) Kpg jhp jm 01:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian Speleological Association[edit]

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

Of the provided citations, all but two are affiliated with the subject, and the final two don't mention the subject and are used in the article to note the accomplishments of supposed members of the organization. Additional google searches turn up nothing in English or German. Does not meet WP:GNG, and certainly not WP:ORGCRIT which is even stricter. Rosguill^talk 06:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First off : I have absolutely no time to edit at the moment, was just looking something up.

I am the first to admit that the article can be improved. As he stated on my user page: you are welcome to improve it.

Third, anyone who sees what I write and edit, anyone who knows me, will say that I stand for quality, i stand by WP rules as anyone would.

I feel strongly that the article has a right to remain, just like all other articles on speleological associations have an unchallenged presence, which have similar quality (issues). Australian Speleological Federation, Circolo Speleologico Romano, French Federation of Speleology, and so on every nation I can think of Germany NZ whatever . Of these, the Austrian sp assoc is actually a salient one, and it had no WP presence, which is why I wrote it! I am not even a member of it, have no "interest" in it. It was pure community service.

In conclusion, I am not sure that Rosquill is fair here. I do not what his agenda is, focusing on just this article. It appears like a witchhunt. Rosquill hasnt been on WP long, (6 mths, made 200o edits a Grognard), never created new articles, but boasts a section "Page Kill Count" on his user page. I am a grandparent, in comparison. --Wuerzele (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw proposal there is a precedent that national-level speleological organizations are notable by default. _signed,Rosguill^talk 07:37, 13 September 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Besse[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

City councilmember in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, who is currently running for the North Carolina Assembly. Does not pass WP:NPOL as an elected official and only has received local coverage of his campaigns. At this moment, there is not an obvious page about the 2018 legislative elections in North Carolina for a redirect. It would be acceptable to draftify the article until the outcome of the legislative election, as the subject is a current candidate. Enos733 (talk) 06:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, coverage is either routine or primary. SportingFlyer talk 06:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As yet unelected candidates in state legislative elections do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, Winston-Salem is not a large or internationally prominent enough city to get him over NPOL #2 in lieu of his not having served in the state legislature yet, and the referencing here consists almost entirely of primary sources that are not valid support for notability at all. No prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins the seat, but nothing here qualifies him to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – unelected candidates aren't notable. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic case of an individual who fails WP:NPOL and has not received significant coverage outside of routine local reporting of their candidacy for office. AusLondonder (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I came here via the academic deletion sorting list and while the article mentions some academic affiliations there is nothing there that looks likely to lead to notability. Certainly there is no documented notability in that direction and Google Scholar doesn't show any legal publications by anyone with a similar name and with enough citations to make a case for WP:PROF#C1. So it seems that all we have to go on is the obvious: a city council member running for higher office, clearly not enough for WP:NPOL. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
possibly keep. He was first elected to the City Council in 2001 - Winston Salem is a significant city. He's had a page on WP since 2008. I suspect that he's notable, and that the page just needs sourcing. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:41, 13 September 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) 06:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True Tamplin[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO either as a sportsman or book author. His book is self-published and his sport achievements were limited to a college period. Bbarmadillo (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment several editors (including Melcous) tried to improve this article. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2 minor acting credits and one self published book, plus school level sporting achievements, none of which add up to notability. Also possibly COI/self-promotion. Melcous (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 06:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 06:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States -related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 06:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ignored advice to author: Does not establish notability against WP:ACTOR or WP:AUTHOR (or WP:NFOOTY, or really WP:NCOLLATH). For WP:AUTHOR to apply, there would need to be significant critical coverage of his works in independent reliable sources. Some of the guidelines at WP:CORP are broadly applicable to public speakers (particularly with respect to sourcing).^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~
Delete Nothing is available which would establish the WP:N. Orientls (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No proof of notabilityRogermx (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:NBIO as noted above, and published by a probable CoI creator. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR and WP:NSOCCER. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 20:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Should be a WP:SNOW delete. AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:12, 15 September 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) 06:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of book-based war films (future wars)[edit]

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

This list is original research in that it places fictional wars from a variety of fictional works by different author into a single timeline. Hence, among the wars which this article identifies as having been depicted in films based on books, we see the Wars of Barsoom, the Ape Revolt, the Drac War, the Bug War, and the War of the Old Empire against House Atreides. While the article's lead acknowledges that the wars described are fictional, the structure of the article does not sufficiently focus on a real-world perspective. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 06:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 06:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 06:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is decidedly OR/SYNTH, and it verges on the trivial. Delete for failing to meet a core content policy. I also find it to lack notability, as there are not likely to be RS speaking on this topic. --Izno (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability. It does not meet the guidelines set forth in WP:NOTESAL. Without any real-world sourcing, listings are highly subjective and thus unsupportable. E.g., Blade Runner is not in any sense a war film; military actions are only mentioned as part of the background. I don't think a valid list is possible with this scope. Instead, I think a more appropriate list would be a list of military science fiction films. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with the military books (fantasy) film list (also at AFD) this is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list full of WP:OR and WP:SPECULATION. MarnetteD|Talk 16:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the guidelines cited above. Shearonink (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. This is irredeemable original research and synthesis. Reyk _YO! 07:37, 12 September 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. And merge / rename as discussed below. Sandstein 11:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Data rescue[edit]

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

Looks like a case of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:ADVOCACY. None of the cited sources calls this "Data Rescue". The "movement" has not gained notability. Efforts to "rescue" data are already documented in the relevant articles, such as Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration. Nothing else to preserve here. — JFG ^talk 12:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a generic term, "data rescue" could be redirected to "backup". — JFG ^talk 12:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or redirect~~. I think Research data archiving might also be a possible target. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I think I disagree with lack of notability, and if someone has time to do a curated merge, or significantly rewrite the article, I would not be opposed to either. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha3031: I suggest below we rename it. I gave four sources for the topic I consider this page to be about. What title do you suggest? --David Tornheim (talk) 04:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The new sources below make this WP:HEY for me.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a better consensus as the only participant has proposed two ideas
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Research data archiving would indeed be a better redirect target, if we admit that "data rescue" is the name of a special effort to archive research data. Sources do not indicate that to be the case, and "data rescue" has a more generic meaning. — JFG ^talk 16:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
JFG, I would have suggested Data archiving, but that page already redirects there, though I've now found Digital preservation, which seems to be a more appropriate redirect. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, it might as well be a short dab page among "backup", "research data archiving" and "digital preservation", although I still think deleting the term is the best outcome. — JFG ^talk 00:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more opinions in this discussion as there are only two users discussing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 04:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Disamb Add Data recovery to the list of articles in the disambiguation page ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Data rescue movement, and merge with two other orphan articles on the same subject: Climate Mirror and Guerrilla Archiving Event: Saving Environmental Data from Trump. Data rescue title should be a dab page. -- The article is about the notable event of trying to save climate data from deletion by the Trump administration (and similar efforts preceding it). pbs pri Wired NYT. I'm uncomfortable with the title "data rescue" which sounds like a place to go when your hard drive fails as in data recovery. I'm not sure of the best name. I am open to suggestions. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the sources and they seem good. Since most of the sources refer to the movement as "Data rescue", I don't think a major rename is warranted. At most, disambiguating it to "Data rescue movement" might be in order, but I think maybe a hatnote to a disambiguation page (which needs to be created, though where at I'm not sure) would also suffice. I'm going to ping the other two participants Noian and JFG though, both to see what they think of the sources and if they have any ideas what the dab page should be named and what it should contain.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I have changed my !vote to exactly match JFG's language, and hopefully we now have consensus. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Data rescue movement, and merge with two other orphan articles on the same subject: Climate Mirror and Guerrilla Archiving Event: Saving Environmental Data from Trump. Plenty of sources there, so that notability is achieved. Still, the Data rescue title should be a dab page. — JFG ^talk 10:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:58, 11 September 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} 08:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of photo gallery software[edit]

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

Doesn't seem very encyclopaedic to me - Wikipedia is not a buyer's guide. Quite which programs get included seems entirely arbitrary. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is poorly done at present - only the programs that have WP articles get included in these lists (other may be removed) so selection isn't arbitrary. There's no solid rationale here for deletion as these types of articles are standard - see Category:Software comparisons. SD0001 (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a software guide. It's very worrying that software seems to be added at random creating a bias. » Shadowowl | talk 18:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion are met. Almost all software listed is notable enough for a Wikipedia article and thus a comparison of such software is also inherently notable. Lists and comparisons such as this are standard practice on Wikipedia and this fails to meet any specific criterion for deletion. The AfD nomination does not even mention which criterion for deletion is being used. Alleged lack of quality in an article just means the article needs to be improved, not deleted. Deletion on Wikipedia requires meeting one of the criteria for deletion and I do not see any which are met and nobody is citing any of them either. Yetisyny (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles which can be improved is not a criteria for deletion. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided - I started out with a weak keep. I've removed the non-notable examples that make it a problem for WP:NOT. To my mind that made it a comparison of notable software within a particular category, which is pretty common. The problem is that the software category it's based on is not one we have an article on (photo gallery software) and there aren't as many sources comparing that kind of software as there typically are for other such lists... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Move to Comparison of photo gallery publishing software, which is a more precise description of the list quoted from the lead sentence that distinguishes "photo gallery software" from "image organizer". As photo gallery publishing software is a distinct software category with multiple notable entries, this comparison would qualify as a information list under WP:LISTPURP, which is referenced in WP:LISTN. — Newslinger talk 10:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. analogous to many similararticles, with adequate sources and appropriately selective coverage. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 16 September 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. Vanamonde (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Lonardo[edit]

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

Obvious notability issues, and hints of COI Qwirkle (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Provided the article can be resourced and rewritten to meet Wikipedia guidelines.TH1980 (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more opinions to generate consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per wikipedia guidelines on notability of elected politicians. Article needs a rewrite not grounds for deletion ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...and yet the guideline says no such thing, does it? I think the closer should ignore this !vote. Qwirkle (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature", unless the blurb about 2017 election to National Assembly isn't an office nationally? I found some news articles but I can't read Italian myself ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not a national office, but a party one. Not a national office, any more than, say, a ward heeler. Qwirkle (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a member of the Italian parliament; the "2017 election to the National Assembly" is referring to the internal organizing structure of his political party (i.e. the equivalent of being a delegate to the Democratic or Republican national conventions in the United States), not to a legislature. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not claim that he's ever held any political office that would constitute a pass of NPOL #1 (which attaches to legislative offices, not board memberships of political parties' organizational committees), and does not reliably source that he has any notability as a writer — which demands media coverage about the fact of his writing, not just metareferencing of his books to themselves. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 10 September 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. The general consensus was to keep this article as meeting the WP:GNG. References have been improved in this AfD process. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indoor roller coaster[edit]

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

Tagged as unsourced for six years. My own searching fails to find any useful mentions of the term; lots of search hits, but they're all just mentions of a roller coaster that happens to be indoors, with no evidence the term is used in a meaningful way. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of enclosed roller coasters -- RoySmith (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of enclosed roller coasters, much of the discussion there suggests a merge to this article. if this article isn't here that's a little silly. should at least wait for that AfD to close. It also seems that there's plenty of scholar results for indoor roller coasters, so the topic seems notable to me. - Scarpy (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the result of another deletion discussion is allegedly "a little silly", that should not prevent us from making a better decision here.

@Scarpy: Could you point out specific scholar results (maybe at least 2?) that do not just mention "indoor" as an adjective, but that actually focus in-depth on this specific type of rollercoaster? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason why I would need too. We're not talking about the notability of a person or institution or even a neologism, but rather a variety of roller coaster that's enclosed in a building (several of which have articles and are linked). If the indoor roller coasters themselves are notable, then the list of notable of indoor roller coasters is also notable. I almost voted speedy keep for that reason. - Scarpy (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scarpy: Please compare "red carpet" to "black carpet". Red carpets are a notable term, black carpets are not. Both are "varieties of carpets", and "carpet" has an own article. Nevertheless, "black carpet" does not inherit the notability of "carpet"; neither does "red carpet". There is something else that makes "red carpet" a notable term. I would like to learn why "indoor roller coaster" is such a term. Until then, Delete for a lack of significant coverage of the specific article topic in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, per WP:GNG (emphasis changed, links removed). The frequent appearance of a term together with a specific adjective might be an interesting fact for the term's article, but does not automatically justify having a separate article called "adjective term". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any articles on notable black carpets? There are on notable indoor rollercoasters. Please mind WP:BLUDGEON. - Scarpy (talk) 04:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, a roller coaster that is notable enough to have its own article focuses on the ride characteristics themselves (height, speed, inversions, records, etc.). The fact that it is indoor is an afterthought and somewhat trivial detail. Briefly mentioning this type of roller coaster in the main roller coaster article with a redirect from indoor roller coaster to an anchor on that page would be sufficient, as there's not enough information on this topic to warrant its own standalone article. If that ever changes, then we can consider creating the article. We shouldn't be approaching this the other way around. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced dicdef followed by an unreferenced, directory-like list. Topic appears to fail WP:GNG. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. This is obviously notable. There might be scope for merger with "enclosed roller coaster" as they are similar (eg Indoor and enclosed roller coasters). There is no scope for deletion. The comparison with colour differences in carpets is not a valid analogy since roller coasters are not classified by colour, but they are classified by being inside or outside (eg "largest indoor roller coaster" [1] [2] [3], which you won't find for red roller coasters [4]; likewise with "fastest indoor roller coaster" [5] [6] and only one in Ontario [7]), and "black carpet" a particularly poor example because it is a notable type of beetle (see Black carpet beetle). So black carpets are notable. And the sources available indicate that NOT is inapplicable, because, for example, largest and fastest are not a definition at all. And NOTDIR is about directory services which are a computing thing that has nothing to do with this. James500 (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to roller coaster. The defining characteristics of a roller coaster (height, speed, elements, etc.) have nothing to do with being indoor vs. outdoor. This is a trivial detail, and if a brief 2-3 sentence description is truly needed, it can exist in the main roller coaster article. We can redirect "indoor roller coaster" to an anchor/subsection on that page. It's absurd to create a standalone article on a topic that there isn't much to say about. #ForeverStubStatus --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sourcing to cover notability issues is clearly satisfied by previous editors. While I can see why DICDEF was mooted, I think only the first line is strictly so, and the rest of the paragraph + lengthy list of examples is sufficient. There's also masses more content if even 10 minutes was spent expanding. Finally is the WP:CONTENTFORK issue. Roller coaster is a big topic and this is such a different variation that I think it can meet the CONTENTFORK justifications quite well. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of enclosed roller coasters as a merge to this article, and have executed the merge. I have also added a handful of sources to this article. bd2412 T 01:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: Thank you very much; please see this edit which might have removed a misquote. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided a different quote; Space Mountain is too well-referenced as being at least one of the first indoor roller coasters to avoid mentioning it in the lede. bd2412 T 18:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:GNG / WP:LISTN per review of sources in the article and this AfD. Now that there's only one page, it's easier to justify keeping this one to contain all available information on the topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As it seems, it looks like this geographical object does not exist/was confused with another geographical object. The argument against repurposing and in favour of deletion is slightly more compelling. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheopura[edit]

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

Requesting community help in figuring out if this place exists. There doesn't appear to be a settlement with this name in this part of Rajasthan, and there are three villages with a similar name in Barmer district [8] [9] [10] but none of them appear to match the article. On google maps there's a village [11] that seems to match the description, though not the coordinates, of our article, but I can't find it in the census reports. – Uanfala (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC), additions 18:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the coordinates are not that specific, but I'm having trouble independently verifying the village as well. Google Maps is not a RS. SportingFlyer talk 19:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears in District Census Handbook, Series 18, Rajasthan: Chittaurgarh and hence meets WP:GEOLAND as a populated, legally recognized place. It is marked on Google Maps, but the coordinates in the article are off. It's about 150 miles further East at 25.795263° N, 72.698927° E which corresponds to 4 km south of Majal, as stated in the article. SpinningSpark 21:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's a different village, right? Just to double-check, your coordinates are for the same place that I've linked on google maps above (link #4), which is the place the article appears to be about and whose existence we're trying to verify. The 1972 census results you're linking to are for another village (in the latest census that's either this or that), and the article will have to be rewritten if it were to be about that (or any other village of the same name), though that shouldn't be difficult (it's a stub). – Uanfala (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I strongly suspect there was simply a typo in the coordinates. 70° instead of 72° maybe would put it about right. As I said, the location relative to Majal is right. I'm not saying you're wrong, but how do you know the 1972 census is a different place? SpinningSpark 23:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Majal is in Barmer district, while the place from the 1971 census link is in Chittaurgarh district, in a different part of the state. – Uanfala (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, striking my keep for now, but there is definitely a village at that location. Now I've looked at Divisions of Rajasthan, Chittaurgarh district is not even in the right division (Barmer district is in Jodhpur division). SpinningSpark 23:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although a weak one since this is not a very reliable source, but i would say enough to prove its existence. BTW Google map is not a reliable source. I have been sent at wrong location several times, credits Google maps. Although it shows in the vicinity of Majal, but I highly suspect, that location is correctly tagged in google maps. --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That's also a different place (~~and one that doesn't appear in the censuses, at least not under this name)~~: it's in Ajmer district, while the one the article is about is in Barmer district. – Uanfala (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm unable to find any village under this name in Barmer district but there is one in Bhilwara district in Rajasthan so, rather than deleting this page, I think it's best to change the information according to the source we have. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In continuation of my keep vote above. I would slightly modify my above comment and agree with User:GSS That the content should be modifiedaccording to these sources [12] and this one in Bhilwara district in Rajasthan. User:Uanfala you can clearly see the difference in the spelling of your 2 links. All said, Shiva is revered God in India and village name based on him will be quite common, We have to follow WP:V and work with the best sources we have got. regards. --DBig Xrayᗙ 09:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You're referring to the spelling "Sheopura" vs. "Shivpura"? From what I've seen so far, both are spelled the same in Devanagari, there is no difference in pronunciation and the same village can be spelt in one or the other way. Anyway, the purpose of the AfD was to seek community feedback on whether this place exists and deserves an article; if there is consensus that it doesn't, then yes, it is probably acceptable to "hijack" the article for any of the other places with the same name (though some would deem it better to delete the page and start anew). – Uanfala (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. If the page is to be repurposed having a different subject in the history is confusing and against policy. In those circumstances, the existing page could be moved to draft space. It undoubtedly exists, but appears not to be legally recognised, so to have an article it would need to meet GNG. Otherwise delete, but either way don't share the history with an unrelated settlement. SpinningSpark 13:02, 13 September 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 Paul McCartney#Early life. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth McCartney[edit]

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

Cannot find WP:SIGCOV. It seems likely that this article only exists because she is the step-sister of Paul McCartney, and WP:BLPRELATED applies. Tacyarg (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Merge is difficult. This is a difficult one. Easily available coverage doesn't look good. There are passing mentions. A major article discussing tapes she made is in the Daily Mail [13] which is a tabloid and should be treated with caution. (Note: not definitely not used as a reference, but treated with caution.) However in books she is mentioned much more often. E.g. there is quite a bit of information discussing her, not just trivial mentions, in Paul McCartney: The Life By Philip Norman. Less impressively she's also discussed in Blackbird: the life and times of Paul McCartney by Geoffrey Guiliano. I think the problem is this: There is enough to justify inclusion of Ruth McCartney within Wikipedia, but I believe that this should be in an article on the McCartney family. However, the page on Jim McCartney redirects to a page on the parents of Paul McCartney, Jim and Mary McCartney. I'm not sure that including Jim McCartney's second marriage in this page works. I believe that there should be some sort of merge into a McCartney family page, but that this requires proper planning of how the McCartney extended family will be represented. I'd support Merge if someone is going to put the work in to do this properly, but oppose Ruth McCartney being deleted in the interim. Ross-c (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is not inherited. Vorbee (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete mere mention in biographies about famous sibling isn't notability. Mangoe (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 02:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paul McCartney#Early life per User:Ross-c. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 03:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the nom that subject is not notable, and has no significant coverage in reliable sources. WWGB (talk) 03:35, 8 September 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. czar 12:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Lettieri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was deleted a year ago, and seems no more notable now. Not seeing anything that amounts to independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources about him, rather than the company, Recycle Track Systems. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

user:MzLange: Apologies for not knowing to do this earlier, I'm disclosing here that I'm a paid editor for RTS and CEO Gregory Lettieri. In addition to being CEO of RTS, he's also a producer of Live NBC productions. I looked at several other CEO listings, and he seems just as legit as any others, although I agree most of the media coverage is on his company and not him as a person. Please let me know what to do to remedy this situation. MzLange —Preceding undated comment added 12:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination, the article has to stand in it's own right, not in comparison to other CEO's, and at present it doesn't make the grade XyzSpaniel Talk Page 14:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 02:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. I also nominated the associated company here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recycle Track Systems. Both articles are part of the same promotional walled-garden, edited by the same single-purpose account Special:Contributions/MzLange. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dhara (film)[edit]

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

1. Breaks WP notability guidelines. 2. Not at all verifiable. 3. Google Search does not bring anything useful for expansion. 4. Just because this film got a page on IMDb is not the reason that it should've a page on WP. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 13:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This "Dhara" ad is more notable. wumbolo ^^^ 13:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 02:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There seems to be an overwhelming amount of non-noteworthy, mediocre, stub articles I'm running into that are being nominated for deletion. Now I'm not sure if this is a recent trend or if these types of articles have always plagued the website but this one falls into the category I'm describing. Besides the fact that a simple google search provides little to no information (from what I could tell) about the film, The majority of the article is it's plot section. This is an issue for 2 reasons. 1: One doesn't look for an encyclopedic entry of a film to find even more than say 10% of the article about the films plot, in fact, that is what google and websites that review and give information about films are for, not Wikipedia (of course not to say that there shouldn't be a section detailing the plot). 2: If you take a look at more well written articles about perhaps a more popular film, lets say Captain America: Civil War, the plot section is moderately sized and isn't the focus, the article details other things such as cast, a section about production with many subsections, and so on. Finally, as more of a side note I'd like to say that this article's trivia section with a single sentence seems to be unnecessary and more of an attempt to make the article longer rather than provide useful information.Grapefruit17 (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-The best that I managed to confirm after a 20 minute search, back in morning is that it ain't a hoax.∯WBG^converse 14:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Me thinks it's a B-grade drama and I was foolish to invest much efforts......∯WBG^converse 14:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Original creator of the article speaking. By all means go ahead and delete it. I know writing articles about movies is not my forte; in fact, I rarely write about anything that's not my specialism at all (I've decided to leave this project anyway, but that's a different story). I have seen the film, so I can tell you for sure that it exists. Since this Wikipedia has an article about practically any movie, I was kind of surprised back then that there wasn't one in this case, so I simply decided to write a stub—admittedly based on one single primary source, namely, the film itself. AFAIK there's no rule that says that a stub must a sourced. It is verifiable, since the film can be easily purchased. I have no opinion regarding notability, except that notability is, and has never been, a hard criterion. The fact that notability is at least weak is probably shown by the fact that practically nobody has expanded the article since it was created nine years ago, except for the trivia section (which I agree is unnecessary given the length of the article). —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 15:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IJzeren Jan, notability was, is and will be a hard criterion.See WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V.Best, ∯WBG^converse 15:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A guideline is not the same thing as a hard rule. But that's an old discussion we're not going to have here. Besides, I haven't claimed any notability, nor am I objecting to deleting the article. For the record, I found the movie (I still possess it) rather mediocre, to put it nicely. Cheers, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 16:04, 11 September 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. Vanamonde (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu Puran (TV series)[edit]

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

No sources establishing notability and most of the article is just a recap of individual episodes. Should be relegated to a mention on the disumbgation page for the topic Zubin12 (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral, but...~~ I highly doubt this doesn't meet GNG. The Times of India says Bharadwaj is still known for his portrayal of Vishnu in this and its (admittedly somewhat better-known sister series) Mahabharat almost two decades on.[14] As apparently do Bollywood Life and The Indian Express: if a notable actor is notable primarily for playing a particular role in a particular franchise, then surely that franchise is if anything more notable, no? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I stand by my assertion that this topic is probably notable, but it seems our biggest guns haven't been able to solve its problems or even make even piecemeal changes without inserting unsourced content or misreading sources. I would be open to a redirect to B. R. Chopra or Mahabharat (1988 TV series) or some other such potential target pending someone with better access to sources putting together a decent article. I suspect eleven years ago I could have put together something better than what I did, but not now, and it doesn't seem anyone can, at least in the short run. I would prefer this discussion not be relisted again or closed as "no consensus" just because only three people have !voted, which is really the main reason I'm changing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A bunch of recaps of this series, but they can't even tell us what network it was on. Definite WP:TNT case. Nate • (chatter) 23:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many sources for the popular series and I've added a couple for now. Hijiri88 also showed its notability. StrayBolt (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@StrayBolt: The reason I didn't !vote "keep" specifically was because arguing that having starred Bharadwaj, who is famous for the much earlier Mahabharat (from which this was essentially a spinoff, although this claim might be OR), makes it notable is essentially a NOTINHERITED argument. Your Tribune India citation similarly is more a puff-piece about Bharadwaj's history of playing various avatars of Vishnu and just happened to coincide with the premier of this series, but says almost nothing encyclopedic about the series other than its premier date; some of the information you attribute to it, such as "124 episodes" is not supported by it, and wouldn't be even if the source actually did say as much, since it would be too old. The India Today piece similarly is more about Bharadwaj than Vishnu Puran, and doesn't actually support the content you cited to it, as it says four other shows (Jai Mata Ki, Jai Ganga Maiya, Ma Shakti and Shree Ganesh) were "Top 10" in one manner or another, although apparently for the first two this meant top ten a particular network, which is not very noteworthy encyclopedic information without more context -- it actually seems to imply Vishnu Puran was not a top ten show as it goes out of its way to list "mythologicals" that made the top ten and doesn't mention Vishnu Puran among these. It somewhat seems you read my above comment, Googled up more sources about Bharadwaj and threw them into the article, which implies you wanted to !vote one way despite the fact that your argument had already been demonstrated as flawed before you made it: your !voting record and your association (per this, you are one of three active contributors) with a certain disreputable "keepist" WikiProject (itself having a reputation for claiming to improve articles while instead shifting AFD !votes from "delete" to "no consensus") appear to support this. The reason I am not !voting "delete" is just because I don't have access to the main source I used at the time I originally wrote the article, which I believe was a promotional piece on the Mahabharat DVD box set, and can't check if it was itself usable for creating a worthwhile article (even though it definitely wasn't independent and so wouldn't satisfy any notability guideline) -- I definitely don't remember what it said after more than ten years -- but I would be willing to !vote "delete" simply to counteract any apparent "keep" !votes that appear to have been made in bad faith. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 10:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Major television series (over 100 episodes) on major television network Zee TV which has a higher viewership than ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX combined. Most certainly Hindi language coverage exists. Even a 20 episode show on ABC would never even be considered for deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 04:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment Perspective is needed however; India around 2000 had a population of 1.028 billion, while the US had 281.5 million, which is a 4-1 difference, so of course anything Indian is going to top American ratings based on a wider audience. However, it's very doubtful all of the episodes beat the American broadcast networks; Zee TV is still a cable/satellite channel, and not all of those 1.028 billion Indians can afford satellite service. If DD National aired this, I might more believe the claim. I'm still convinced the article needs a major repair that needs more than uninspiring loglines and is undecodable to anyone who hasn't seen this series or read the Vishnu Purana. Nate • (chatter) 05:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting blind speculation on Zee TV's ratings based on it being a cable/satellite channel but reliable sources say the Zee Network is in fact the most watched network in India with a viewership of over 740 million.[15][16], compared to just over 25.6 million for CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox combined with ABC at only about 5.6 million.[17] Shows on Zee TV are major.--Oakshade (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you going to fix the article, based on your OR claim that it must have had high viewership (and therefore been covered in reliable secondary sources!?) because the network that aired it in its first run has high viewership? (BTW, almost nothing on Zee has high numbers in first-run international syndication, which kinda shoots your argument that it has been seen by more people than ABC shows in the foot; I didn't point this out earlier because it's completely irrelevant to AFD, but now that you've made the same argument multiple times I might as well point this out.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No OR as the reliable sources linked state the networks viewerships. First run syndication is just a red herring as even if there was no syndication, the gigantic viewership of Zee TV of over 740 million of Zee TV stands. I don't believe for a second that extensive coverage in the Hindi language doesn't exist for a show on such a highly viewed Hindi languagne network. Just using common sense instead of being pedantic. --Oakshade (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is OR to state that because of the network viewership statistics this particular show (which aired well over a decade before those sources) had such-and-such viewership. Do not even attempt to add this claim to the article. If you have nothing we can add to this article, then it should be deleted or redirected. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Zee's Annual Report for 1999-2000. Sorry, it might be biased, but probably meets some legal standard for accuracy. StrayBolt (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough for me; I usually need a third-party source to confirm whether a rating is true or not, along with viewership. The Oscars struggle to get their bloated 'million people around the world watch' claim completely confirmed (since it's 2am in Europe and people are in school in Asia, or they're watching an edited version a week after). I can believe that 740 million people may have watched this series in aggregate, but they definitely didn't all watch every single minute of it. Nate • (chatter) 14:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oakshade: WP:OSE: It would be great if we didn't have articles on random 20-episode shows about which no sourced, encyclopedic information can be written solely because they aired on ABC, but it's not this show's fault that English Wikipedia is filled with articles on shitty American pop culture that are undeletable. Our deletion policy and notability guidelines are based on whether we can actually write anything worthwhile without engaging in original research or unsourced speculation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait-Running a source-search but it will take time.∯WBG^converse 06:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 02:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and mention in the disambiguation page--I can find ample trivial mentions of the work, in English news-pieces about the protagonist and the producer and some trivial mentions in list of serials/films centered around mythology but there's not a single retrievable piece that devotes significant coverage to the serial, in it's entirety.I will check the Hindi dailies of that time but am not much hopeful.∯WBG^converse 16:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The serial has been covered in Sunday-entertainment-sections of a few Hindi dailies but nothing close to GNG.∯WBG^converse 12:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:TVSERIES as nationally broadcast and has sufficient coverage to pass that criteria especially as it is 18 years old now so some sources have gone from view Atlantic306 (talk) 18:03, 15 September 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) 06:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh Pandey (CEO)[edit]

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

CEO of two non-notable companies. Nothing cited in the article counts towards WP:GNG, and I can find nothing better online. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nicosan. Reliable sources that made coverage of this individual have mostly talked about him in relation to Nicosan. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO. "Oppose" a redirect to the drug (Nicosan) -- not a suitable target. A better target would have been his company, but it's nn itself. In any case, I'm not a fan of BLP redirects to a company. The drug name would be even less suitable. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 02:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per K.e.coffman and WP:NOTINHERITED. There is no evidence of independent notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:37, 12 September 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) 06:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Twitter controversies[edit]

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

WP:IINFO. Lists are supposed to contain things which can be compared to each other. I'm not sure how an article which is a list of controversies could ever reach a state, in which the individual items like lawsuits and controversial bots belong on the same list. Not to mention that calling these events controversies may often be controversial in itself, and a potential BLP violation to include someone on this list. wumbolo ^^^ 18:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Controversies" is one of those words I've always had a problem with, as it's often used lazily or has POV implications, but it's persisted on Wikipedia maybe for lack of a better term. This list is complementary to Category:Twitter controversies, which is itself a sub-sub...category of a (disturbingly?) well-developed Category:Controversies structure. So whatever the merits of the criticism of this particular list, I don't think the problems are particular to its usage here but rather pervasive. I will somewhat disagree with the nom on one point though; if there's anything that can objectively (and legally) be called a "controversy", it's a lawsuit. But then we equivocate when we lump that in with the (again, often lazy) lay usage of the word. postdlf (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 02:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article doesn't cite anything which leads me to believe that it is original research (WP:OR). Also who is the editor to decide something completely subjective like what is and isn't a twitter controversy as if it's objective fact. Finally this list has only 20 entries and it's quite hard to believe that there have only been 20 twitter controversies in history, There could have been 20+ twitter controversies in just 2017.Grapefruit17 (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An ill-defined list that equivocates between lawsuits, political scandals and people just being upset (the long tail of the latter being, at this point, pretty much synonymous with Twitter). XOR'easter (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 21:22, 13 September 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. czar 12:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nuffnang[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NCORP. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The current text is spammy, and there seems to be no reason to think this IT company meets WP:ORG Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 02:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[18][19][20] are the best sources, which are ok but really don't have as much analysis as I'd like. There's also [21] and some coverage of its parent company including [22] which I can't access. Overall a ~~weak keep~~ Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Galobtter, can you revisit your !vote in light of the requirements in ORGIND? Especially the part about "Intellectual Independence". Thank you! HighKing⁺⁺ 12:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was waffling over weak delete vs weak keep before writing my !vote. I looked over the sources again, and yeah I guess they don't really have much independant content.. weak delete it is then Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability. References must contain intellectually independent content. Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I cannot identify any sources that meet the criteria, topic fails NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:59, 12 September 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. (If you want the edit history as a draft, need to specify where you want it and who would be maintaining it.) czar 12:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Campbell (Maryland politician)[edit]

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

In the article's intro, it states that he "has not yet successfully secured elected office" which means he'd fail WP:NPOL. The only coverage on Campbell is a few non-notable court cases and coverage on his Senate candidacy so he would fail the general notability guideline. Coverage solely on a candidacy does not demonstrate notability, nor does winning a primary. A candidate must be elected to be considered notable. Redditaddict6 9 01:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOM COMMENT As this is a redirect I created before, I prefer it be closed as the same thing. I stated this below, but the revision history should probably be maintained... at least, until after the election. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the author, I'll weigh in saying I was concerned that an immediate AfD might ensue, as it has. I've tried to secure sufficient sources which are independent of the subject to satisfy WP:NBIO without relying on WP:NPOL. If I have not been successful, then of course this should be deleted. Thanks for reviewing. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I read through WP:NBIO before creating the redirect last month, otherwise I would have made this article myself. I did heavy loads of research (I'm a politics fanatic so I would've done it regardless) and only found some minor court cases and a minor scandal he was once involved in (that I just added into the article). While there are quite a few sources, they don't appear to be sufficient in demonstrating notability. Many of these relate to the candidacy (anything branching off of the candidacy typically doesn't suffice unless it's a major publication, as seen in this AfD discussion) and the others are passing mentions or short mentions, such as the court case articles. I created the discussion because whether or not this coverage makes Campbell notable is a topic that needs to be discussed. Redditaddict6 9 02:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 02:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 02:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More statements regarding nomination – This page may also be seen as a promotional page for his candidacy since he hasn't been elected. I did background research and added everything I found to the article. Search the following statement for the best results: "Tony Campbell" Maryland -cardin Redditaddict6 9 20:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a promotional page is by definition biased. An unbiased biography that is notable cannot be considered to be promotional as much as informational. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply – on the off chance that he wins, maybe this should be closed as a Redirect to maintain the revision history. If Campbell wins, the article can be restored. I support Draftifying as well Redditaddict6 9 02:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to the election page. Only coverage is routine election coverage or primary court information, fails WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 06:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every candidate in every election can always show some degree of campaign coverage, so the existence of some campaign coverage does not automatically translate into a WP:GNG pass that exempts an unelected political candidate from having to pass WP:NPOL. To deem a candidate notable without winning election to and thereby holding a notable NPOL-passing office first, we would need either (a) evidence that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of his candidacies, or (b) evidence that his campaign coverage had exploded so far beyond the ordinary and routine and expected that he had a credible claim to his candidacy being a special case over and above everybody else's candidacies (e.g. Christine O'Donnell, who got so stanking much national and international coverage for having to deny that she was a witch that her article is actually three times as long and three times as reliably sourced as the article about the actual senator she lost to is.) But neither of those things are being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails to meet WP:NPOL. The coverage consists either of routine political coverage, which is to be expected in any state-wide race, and sources concerning a minor and closed legal matter. There's also no indication he meets the notability criteria for authors. Papaursa (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to United States Senate election in Maryland, 2018. I appreciate how WP:CIVIL both the nom and the original editor have been in this discussion! As a candidate, Campbell would not meet WP:NPOL, and the hit-and-run I don't believe would meet WP:NCRIME and would probably just be One event. Bkissin (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gets media coverage every time he runs for office, but can't find \anything except MILL campaign coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:04, 14 September 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. czar 12:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Media & Entertainment[edit]

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

Subject lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Saqib (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no real refs - something looks very much wrong here. How was this ever submitted? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only mentions in sources Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:37, 11 September 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lizz Brady[edit]

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

Fails GNG with only two independent sources. Once I removed the bad sources in this article (Blogspot etc) and used named refs for the duplicates, there is not much left. The article seems to be built around a single exhibition/event ("Broken Grey Wires") as an achievement. Search did not provide additional RS. Seems to be WP:TOOSOON. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly WP:TOOSOON. GenuineArt (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TOOSOON, I'm afraid. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 01:27, 8 September 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. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 07:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Seipelt[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. No sources are provided. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources at fr:Joseph_Seipelt. Stevage 01:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Siepelt performed as a soloist at the première of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony in 1824. https://books.google.com/books?id=PySuF_weSCIC&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=%22Joseph+Seipelt%22+-wikipedia&source=bl&ots=UuBO6-_wNl&sig=o1lpzow-en9XbRhwIEZo9wWqiI0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDjb70oardAhWPyIMKHbH4CKcQ6AEwC3oECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Joseph%20Seipelt%22%20-wikipedia&f=false https://www.concerti.de/werk-der-woche/beethoven-sinfonie-nr-9/ http://www.milenio.com/cultura/la-muerte-de-la-sra-sontag-y-la-novena-de-beethoven Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As well, an article in a national biographical directory such as Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich or Österreichisches Biographisches Lexikon 1815–1950 (as shown in the corresponding German article) generally indicates notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The nominator's concern about missing sources has been addressed. Notability is not in question. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not withdrawing the nom as something else could potentially come up. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning you want for others find more sources? wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or "Speedy Keep". Even the nominator appears to concede the topic is notable. --Doncram (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has a lengthy entries in the both the Großes Sängerlexikon (which I've added to the references) and Österreichisches Biographisches Lexikon 1815–1950. This AfD is a clear case of BEFORE not being followed. Voceditenore (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 23:19, 13 September 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) 06:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enfield TC-10[edit]

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

One source that is unreliable. Non-notable firearm, fails WP:GNG. Reads like an advertisement, not manual of style conforming. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 01:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom.TH1980 (talk) 02:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...FACEBOOK is not a RS. Clearly self promotion. --RAF910 (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot readily find any reliable secondary sources, plenty of mirroring it seems. Nothing to pass GNG that I can readily see. Aoziwe (talk) 12:24, 14 September 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.