Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 January	12 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yury Kuznetsov (artist)[edit]

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

The subject does not appear to meet any of the WP:ARTIST notability criteria. I can't find any significant coverage in searches to verify the "notable works" listed in the article (which includes forming a ragtag group of fellow artists he calls "the guild of beautiful people" and a mural on a post office). Even if verified, I'm not sure any of the events listed would be enough to meet WP:ARTIST #4. The article has been essentially stagnant since it was created over 8 years ago and the only links outside of his personal website are to user-generated websites where artists can upload their own work. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete zero sources found... GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed, couldn't find any sources. --Theredproject (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cant find any reliable sources.Failure of WP:GNG Reddragon7 (talk) 08:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony D. Perkins[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. The entire article is based upon two primary sources and an unreliable source. WP:BEFORE searches for independent, reliable sources are only providing quotations from the subject, which are primary in nature, and brief, fleeting mentions, which are not significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only Google news results I see are just quoting him about something, not talking about him. Dream Focus 17:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Community consensus is that LDS leaders have to pass WP:GNG (see examples in 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018). Some do, but this one does not. Sources in text are from the church PR office's international magazine Liahona, the subject's corporate bio at the church's website, and the very dedicated self-publisher "Grampa Bill", so they are either not independent or not reliable. Search in newspaper/periodical databases finds routine announcements and quotes reprinted from church PR material, with subject in the role of "second person in list of people at temple opening" or "LDS church leader who provided a quote that LDS stuff is good". So, does not meet WP:GNG. Readers can find his bio on the church's website without Wikipedia's help. Open to reconsideration if significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Interruption (speech). See the AfD comments for suggestions for more specific sections to merge into. Provide a redirect after merging. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manterrupting[edit]

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

Seems like a piece together through original research or WP:SYNTH rather than a notable topic. Isingness (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it is notorious like any other similar term (Mansplaining, Manspreading) and can be expanded and improved by translating the article from German and French. I just gave the initial kick. Holy Goo (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I might cull the information about the app as undue weight, but there's certainly enough out there to expand this into a very credible article. Despite the recent coinage of the term, a Google Scholar search is surprisingly productive, for example. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Interruption_(speech)#Manterrupting which is the same topic plus more context.Andrew D. (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Interruption_(speech)#Manterrupting where's it already appropriately covered, per Andrew D. --Lockley (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make sense to me. Manterrupting is an independent term. It'd be like reducing "Mansplaining" to explanation. --Holy Goo (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Andrew D, but maybe to the broader section Interruption (speech)#Gender and interruption patterns, where the awkward separate section could be better explained in context. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 03:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge) this article seems to give undue weight to a word that does not seem to be very well established. I would be open to change my mind if the article was improved. wikitigresito (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Andrew D--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Billionaire Club[edit]

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

Failure to satisfy WP:NFILM - couldn't find sourcing that satisfied all three of Sig Cov/reliable/independent.

It's got a good number of notable actors, so I thought there might be reviews, but thus far was unavailable to find any.

It presumably isn't "Billionaires Boys Club" - the Kevin Stacey film!

Nosebagbear (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Well, there are easier things to find online sources for than a 15 year old Nigerian film! Also, the correct title for this film is Billionaire's Club. All that said, there's at least one article in a scholarly journal dedicated to analysis of themes in the film: Aniago, Emeka; Onah, Jonas; Okosisi, Callista (2017). "Analytical evaluation of supernatural realities in Nigerian films: Ernest Obi's Idemili and Afam Okereke's Billionaire's Club as paradigms". IKENGA International Journal of Institute of African Studies. 17 (1): 157–163. As it was published well over a decade after the film's release, I can only assume the film was relatively well-known and any difficulty in finding sources is the result of systemic bias rather than actual absent notability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had also searched that, though I didn't get the journal (or perhaps I did and didn't read all the way) - definitely one of the odder titles, shame I can't get to it! I grant there's something to the argument - but I use 2000 as my balance point. Nosebagbear (talk)

Nom partial vote change - to any closer, I didn't want to amend the nomination, but please consider my inherent !vote to be a Weak Delete Nosebagbear (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article - This movie article was enjoyed by Nigerian's and Ghanaian's despite it was a Nigerian movie, the global community at large also liked it, so keeping this article would very key, but I am sure that in the future the would be good number references and citation Jwale2 (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jwale2: - this isn't a justification, just a variant of WP:ILIKEIT. It's worth having a read of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I located an additional scholarly source through Jstor. Here is the citation: Brown, Matthew H. “At the Threshold of New Political Communities: Some Notes on the History of Nollywood's Epic Genre.” The Global South, vol. 7, no. 1, 2013, pp. 55–78. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/globalsouth.7.1.55. I have access to Jstor so I was able to check the text. Between this and the article noted by the editor above, the film meets WP:NFILM.Citrivescence (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Why is this being discussed under the title "Billionaire Club" when if one clicks on the wiki-text, one finds out the film is called "Billionaire's Club"? Vorbee (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vorbee: - because that's what the article is currently titled. If it remains then it can be moved, but that can be messy to do mid-AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been much better if you had performed this move before nominating for deletion. Then it would have been discussed under the correct title. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but unless it's absolutely clear-cut, like a grammar issue, I prefer to check the mood of people before performing a move. That would have required delaying this AfD (which is both more important than a minor move but also can handle it if people opt to Keep). Additionally it risks unneeded multiple moves if the AfD decided on something different. TL;DR - I could have, but there were better reasons not to; than to. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2019 (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. Tone 09:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamad Fakih[edit]

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

Being a privately held company, where the claims about the company are being made cannot be verified you cannot take at face value much of the information is correct or highly accurate. Blogs, Twitter or Facebook entries, web page updates are the place to promote the business he owns. It is extremely rare to see pages about other privately owned companies senior executives because there is no value to it other than to promote the individual. The page about the subject only holds up as a resume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeProperties (talk • contribs) 00:12, 1 November 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 December 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another paid PR piece. Non-notable, needs to be deleted. Skirts89 (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. Looks like undeclared paid editing product. Sources are not so bad but they do not look to meet notability requirements. Not terribly bad as promotion, there is more about his philanthropy than trying to promote the food company. If notable, he should be mentioned at Quebec City mosque shooting and Paramount Fine Foods. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Without even reading the article, I know Fakih is the founder of Paramount Fine Foods, and is known for his philanthropy and aid to immigrants to Canada. I still get my news via dead tree, and my recollection is that that there is at least one profile piece that I've read about him. I am not expressing a "keep" yet because I understand that my personal recollection that there are sources is not the same as actually producing them, ut it might take me a bit to dig them up. I should have access to the newspaper archives for the newspaper I am subscribed to, for checking. -- Whpq (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This Toronto Star article is already a reference in the article. It is a substantial write-up specifically about Fakih. This Toronto Star article from 2012 is another substantial piece about Fakih. This Globe and Mail article is about Paramount Fine Foods, but includes substantial info written about Fakih. Ther is also this Finacial Post article about Fakih. This represents substantial coverage from multiple independent reliable sources with which to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Whpq (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting case with set of four sources, all of which I would call non-independent as they are write ups based on the writers interviewing the subject, as I argue here: [[1]]. These four sources contain no third party sourcing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The virtue of the interviews being conducted by Toronto Star and others makes them third party sources. The question is if these are only primary sources but at least the Globe and Mail contains secondary considerations (discussions with independent people not affiliated with the man or chain). Add the coverage of the defamation and his charity work, and GNG for BLP is clearly met. --Masem (t) 02:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can see your point, but these articles are not from minor news sources. The Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail are major Canadian newspapers. That their editors have made an editorial decision that Fakih is worth covering (i.e., is worthy of note). These are not straight interview pieces, and I expect that the reporters on these assignments did do their fact checking. So I'd agree that using a quote from Fakih from one of these articles as a reference to verify a specific claim in the article would be problematic, from the point of view of notability, the decision to write an article about Fakih does establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline keep . Of course there is nothing special to write about it, but a chain of 80 restaurants surely is an achievement of note. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Whpq, even if I disagree that the sources meet the GNG. The GNG is not absolute in our decisions to keep or delete articles. I am influenced by the public causes, and the lack of blatant commercial publicity. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:19, 17 January 2019 (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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Ganesh[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear failure of WP:GNG and NACTOR Spiderone 11:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:47, 11 January 2019 (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 snow keep per snowball clause . (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shari Thurer[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NAUTHOR due to lack of independent, significant coverage in reliable sources. Doesn't appear to meet any of the auto-keep criteria of WP:PROF either. Arguments which led to the keep closure of the AFD fourteen years ago seem uncompelling. SITH (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Myths of Motherhood has been cited over 400 times according to Google Scholar, and was reviewed in San Francisco Chronicle, Seattle Times, Chicago Tribune, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, and The New York Times, among others. So at a minimum that book is notable. Bakazaka (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Like it was said, her book is notable for Wikipedia, but she herself is not. The article could have been repurposed as The Myths of Motherhood but there is no content here to so. Shari fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, nor any special criteria outside of it is met (no impact, no high citation number for PROF, no notable awards for BIO, nothing). Also the fact this article survived in this permastub state for FOURTEEN YEARS (!!) tells enough about her notability and how many articles like these will slip through sadly. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As agreed above, her book Myths of Motherhood has multiple published reviews. But, although less well known, her other book The End of Gender does also have multiple published reviews [2] [3]. So she passes WP:AUTHOR for more than one book. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR per David Eppstein's argument. XOR'easter (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As well as reviews of the two books already mentioned, there was plenty of coverage of her work before she published Myths of Motherhood. In 1980, there were articles in many US newspapers and some Canadian ones about 'A hidden bias in children's books' against the disabled or those who looked different (eg the Boston Globe [4]. In 1982, articles about 'Surgery: The Mind Can Be as Affected as the Body, Doctors Discover', eg the Los Angeles Times [5]. Her advice is quoted (7 paras) in 'Mother's Day tips for stepmothers' before she had published Myths of Motherhood (eg the Boston Globe [6]. Some of those sources include info about her age and her husband, if there's a concern about biographical information. So that's over 25 years of coverage of her work - she definitely meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR per David and WP:GNG per Rebecca. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2019 (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. Participants in the discussion believe this institution lacks enough significant, independent coverage to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. So, the non-guideline expectations set by WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES notwithstanding, this one has come out as Delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Grace Academy of Engineering for Women[edit]

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

Non-notable school. GNews provides nothing about the school itself (string searched: "Holy grace academy of engineering") and the three sources that are on the page now all 404 out; even if they didn't the lot of them appeared to be listing/profile sites. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 04:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shortly after this AfD started, one of the sources was fixed. Unfortunately, that link points to a listing website. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 06:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a valid college affiliated to AICTE, the apex body for technical education in India. (The docs are valid, to the best of my beliefs and AICTE's website is currently down:-( ) Coupled with the existence of a few trivial sources; this will be duly kept given our affection for keeping all degree-granting institutes. So, withdraw the nom and save us a week of editorial time. ∯WBG^converse 06:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Winged Blades of Godric a accredited degree issuing college accredited from AICTE and it was orginally affiliated to University of Calicut as per this and now to APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University as per this .I have added few references.Note it is no longer a women only college and name has changed to Holy Grace Academy of Engineering.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited degree-granting institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable college.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Mgbo120 (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One mention isn’t enough to meet NSCHOOL, NORG, or GNG. Trillfendi (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find sources to justify notability Spiderone 10:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yulia Takshina[edit]

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

A non-notable Russian actress. Non-authoritative links, no meaningful roles.--RTY9099 (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 24 December 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 December 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article was previously speedy kept at AfD, based on sources added at that time (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yulia Takshina). Bakazaka (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The corresponding article on Russian Wikipedia is far more detailed, with a long list of various roles from the past ten years or so. Judging by Google Translate, while I am definitely not convinced that every one of these roles would contribute to notability, I am equally unconvinced that none of them would do so - it would definitely help if a Russian speaker could review the article. PWilkinson (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Looking at the Google Translate version of the article, and of the blue-linked films she appeared in, it seems that she has had significant roles in at least two films which have articles on Wikipedia - Inadequate people (2010; Неадекватные люди in Russian) and 12 months. New tale (2015; 12 месяцев. Новая сказка in Russian). She played the wife of a main character in Village (TV series) (2013; Станица in Russian), but that character is not listed in the Wikipedia article about the film. One of the TV series listed on IMDB, in which she played a main role, is not included in her Russian Wikipedia article, and seems not to have an article of its own there. The other TV series in which she played the main role of Zhanna/Жанна, is red-linked on Russian Wikipedia, so perhaps it's notable - although all of the films and series which aren't blue-linked are red-linked, so it's hard to know. The one independent source in the current article [7] indicates that she got a lot of attention in her role in the series Don't be born beautiful as enemy and rival of the main characters ("The image of a lazy, bitchy, irresponsible intriguer was so much liked by the public that the actress had a whole army of fans and imitators.") So, on that evidence, it seems that she would pass WP:NACTOR. But the current article has so little information, it would need a lot of work to include what she is notable for, and sources that provide evidence of that ..... RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She's not mentioned in the main credits of Неадекватные люди nor of 12 месяцев. Новая сказка. In so many words, no significant roles in multiple notable films, as WP:NACTOR requires. The Gnome (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perf115 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perf115 has made about a dozen contributions overall to Wikipedia, all on 11 January 2019. -The Gnome (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This article says absolutely nothing about her career—it’s just a personal life section with one sentence about having two kids. Different languages of Wikipedia have different standards. And having gone to the Russian article, it doesn’t help... no reliable sources are given about her career and it’s only IMDb and relationship gossip. Non-notable actress with non-notable roles.Trillfendi (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because subject fails WP:NACTOR. We can gallantly invoke WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero significant roles in notable by Wikipedia movies, shows for Yulia which makes her fail WP:NACTOR. Regarding the sources in the article: a dead link, a trivial source that is not WP:SIGCOV, and the rest are bio listings on a either unreliable or user generated websites. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Admittedly when I closed the first AFD I was under the impression more sources were going to be added, Clearly should've waited but hey ho, Anyway no evidence of any notability, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was about to close this, but saw Davey2010's explanation about the previous AfD and decided to climb on my soapbox instead. We have a rule (which I can't find, but I'm sure is written down somewhere) which says sources don't actually have to be in the article, they just have to exist. This is a perfect example of why that's a terrible rule. If you've got sources, put them in the article. Otherwise, they might as well not exist. Our goal here is to write an encyclopedia, not conduct a seminar in polemics. Sources that aren't in the article don't do anybody any good. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry RoySmith I should've been clearer - At the time of nominating I couldn't find a single thing but someone else did and so without really looking at the sources I assumed these were okay and I assumed the editor who found those few was going to add more if there were more, Ofcourse I agree with that statement just because the source isn't in the article doesn't mean the article should be deleted, The AFD shouldn't of been closed but I've learned a lot and certainly wouldn't of closed now. –Davey2010^Talk 17:02, 19 January 2019 (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. Tone 09:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, Edd n Eddy (season 2)[edit]

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

I propose this should redirect to List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes because the majority of its sources are also linked to in the main article. This season does not stand alone among the rest for notability, just quality IMO. See my similar AfDs for the season 3 and 4 articles. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 00:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: As with the season 1 article - I don't have anything against keeping this article, but neither do I have anything against merging the plot descriptions into List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes and the rest of the article's info into Ed, Edd n Eddy. --Jpcase (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was a non-admin relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect for consistency with the others seasons. This isn't significantly more notable that it would warrant a page but not others. See uncontested AfDs for 3, 4, and 5 (6 never had an AfD). Џ 04:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes seems fine, I don't really see a need to merge. Govvy (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As with the Season 1 article, there's some interesting info in this article that hasn't been included yet in the parent article - e.g. Antonucci's comment about how the characters developed between the first and second seasons. It would also be worth merging the episode summaries for both season 1 and season 2 into the List of episodes article. --Jpcase (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if necessary, the episode synopses can be moved to the list for the season on [List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:CD1E:F589:9178:738E (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the fact alone that this article is a WP:GA. IMO, get the article demoted/delisted first. Steel1943 (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles about TV shows are intolerantly notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perf115 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are but not every season of every show season is. Џ 07:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article as enough valid content to remain on its own, and reviews for this season by itself. Dream Focus 12:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. A season can be notable and the article has enough content for its own article. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2019 (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. Tone 09:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, Edd n Eddy (season 1)[edit]

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

I propose this should redirect to List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes because the majority of its sources are also linked to in the main article. This season does not stand alone among the rest for notability, just quality IMO. See my similar AfDs for the season 3 and 4 articles. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 00:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I don't have anything against keeping this article, but neither do I have anything against merging the plot descriptions into List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes and the rest of the article's info into Ed, Edd n Eddy. -Jpcase (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was a non-admin relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Proposing deletion of good articles without reassessing first? I’m cautious. But looking at it for what it is, I don’t see much of a reason to delete it (or season 2).Trillfendi (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect for consistency with the others seasons. This isn't significantly more notable that it would warrant a page but not others. See uncontested AfDs for 3, 4, and 5 (6 never had an AfD). Џ 04:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes seems fine, I don't really see a need to merge. Govvy (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's some interesting info in this article currently absent from the parent article - e.g. Mike Drucker's review of the series for IGN, the column by the Tallahassee journalist about jawbreakers, and the sentence about early fansites. So merging would be the best way to go. --Jpcase (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if necessary, the episode synopses can be moved to the list for the season on [List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:CD1E:F589:9178:738E (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the fact alone that this article is a WP:GA. IMO, get the article demoted/delisted first. Steel1943 (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has information relevant to this specific season, and is also filled with enough valid content to have a separate article. Most shows do have their seasons as different articles if a significant size. Dream Focus 12:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A season can be notable and the article has enough content for its own article. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2019 (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. Will userfy on request Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Affinity Radio (Cambridge)[edit]

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

Non-notable local radio station. Long way from meeting WP:GNG. SmartSE (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has a significant claim of being the first local DAB Station in the UK. Consensus has been that radio stations with original content are usually kept Atlantic306 (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that a reason to ignore GNG? It was a small local business that became defunct within a year. SmartSE (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears the nomination was not ~~correctly set up when nominated~~ corrected when the page was moved. I have updated the title of the AfD to the article that is to be deleted. No comment on nomination however. Nightfury 13:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Userify. Requires more work for nowMgbo120 (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Atlantic's approach here is not really ideal and I advise the admin who will close this to read thoroughly what the Keep vote said. We cannot presume notability for a station/corporation like this, just like the nominator said. A claim of significance is not enough. So what we are going for is WP:GNG&WP:NCORP. First reference is a WP:ROUTINE announcement of the radio launch, not WP:SIGCOV and seems PR in its nature. The second one is again a WP:ROUTINE announcement of closure, citing what was said (making it no independent). In my search I found nothing except the forum links. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. There's two sources; one is a perfunctory announcement in the trade press that the station exists, the other is a similar notice that it no longer exists. That's not good enough. As an aside, to Jovanmilic97, you should stick to arguing policy in AfDs. Advice directed at the closing admin is generally not useful. When I'm closing an AfD, I find it quite annoying because it's a distraction. I wouldn't have an objection to userfying it per User:Mgbo120, but somebody's got to stand up and commit to doing the work. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2019 (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. Tone 09:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Isaiah Saw[edit]

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

Speedy deletion overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 December 20. My listing here is a purely administrative action; I am neutral. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC):[reply]

I will continue working on the article and add more sources. As it is a modern classical choral song, it does not gather massive coverage like some other more popular genre. I am limited by the kinds of sources I can site but as I was researching the song more after it was speedily deleted, I discovered that the song made it across the pond - Australians are singing it as well. I made a list of all the choir recordings of the song that pop up on Youtube and eventually got tired because many, many choirs sing it. MtUllaHistorian (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More references were added along with another statement why this song has become a culturally notable phenomenon. MtUllaHistorian (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSONG. There are references in the article, but they aren't actually about the song, just articles noting it was performed among others. It's pretty clear there's no meat here and calling it a "culturally notable phenomenon" is just ridiculous even by the most generous possible standards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep [8] covers the song in some depth. [9] is an independent reliable source, though only a few sentences of coverage. [10] has a single sentence, but more than in-passing. It's over the WP:N bar, but not by a lot. There are also a fair number of passing mentions including in the NYT. Hobit (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep. This article is promising, and has a reliable source. Expect more as time goes on.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 07:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Perf115 (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes [WP:GNG].Mgbo120 (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Minimal discussion, so WP:REFUND applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geraldine C. and Emory M. Ford Foundation[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG, WP:NGO, WP:GNG. Only source given in article is a IRS return form. Unable to find much coverage about the foundation other than a passing mention about in a newspiece about a person who received a grant in 1999. —Madrenergic^talk 13:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a couple of sources were added by @RebeccaGreen: very shortly after this AfD was started, but I've no idea what they say - I can't find more than mentions elsewhere, however I'll stay neutral for the moment. Anyone with access a summary would be appreciated. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If somebody eventually finds better sources, this can always be restored, but for now, consensus is it fails WP:NCORP -- RoySmith (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welly (toy company)[edit]

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

I have checked several times for sources on this company, but can only find directory listings and sites selling their products. The article has never had any independent sources about the company, and I cannot rectify that. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found and added three sources about Welly diecast cars, and I expect that there are more offline - I think it would be easy to show that they are notable. Perhaps the article could be renamed Welly (diecast cars)? RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep If independent sources are available, the article can stay.TH1980 (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Hi @TH1980:, as a statement, your !vote above is mostly correct. But as reasoning to register a Keep !vote, the closer would probably ignore. Can you point to specific sources that you believe meet the criteria in WP:NCORP, especially WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH? Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The three sources above are a blog and two directories. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My "keep" vote was a qualified one: if proper sourcing can be found, the article can be kept. Hence, I changed my vote to "weak keep." TH1980 (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate at least two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. There does appear to be one book reference (pg 185) and perhaps there are others in other languages but, as I said, I can't find anything else. As such, topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. I'm happy to change my !vote if another reference that meets the criteria can be located. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:NCORP. -The Gnome (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Voice (U.S. season 15). (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan strange[edit]

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

Not enough notability for her own article. Teb728 redirected page to The Voice, which was disputed by page author via revert. Bensci54 (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Voice (U.S. season 15) after moving without redirect to correct capitalisation Reagan Strange. Hasn't done anything yet of note outside of the series, didn't place high enough to be considered notable for that alone, and there doesn't seem to be much worthwhile to say about her that isn't already stated in The Voice (U.S. season 15), which this article largely duplicates content from. --Michig (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Beyond the abject mess that this article is... being on a reality show isn’t notability by itself. Trillfendi (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Simply not notable. Jmertel23 (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Not even notable enough for a redirect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Voice (U.S. season 15) and correct the capitalization as noted above. The singer is not notable outside of the show, but her name is possibly a search term here if fans of the show try to look her up. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:38, 14 January 2019 (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. Tone 09:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2015 South Coast blackout[edit]

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

Minor event about which little is or can be written. Fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Suggest merging into List of power outages and deleting the page. IceBred (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – I disagree in that the event was "minor" as at the time it was the largest blackout in the history of BC Hyrdo in British Columbia. That said, I also suggest WP:USERFY if the article is deleted as I would like to preserve some of the information. Also, this article is far from the worst attached to Category:Electric power blackouts. I would like to see a review of some the articles listed there. AuroraIL (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/move – I don't think the power outage is necessarily notable by itself, but the storm certainly is.

In British Columbia particularly, there have only really been three notable windstorm's in recent memory. They occured in 2006, 2015 (article in question), and 2018. The latter occurred a few weeks ago, causing major damage to local landmarks and the resulting power outage surpassed that of the 2015 blackout. Of course this is all subjective. It appears that if storms in the Pacific Northwest do not particularly affect the states of Washington and Oregon it is not as notable. I forgot about the 2016 storm as it is not particularly notable in British Columbia. My point is that I think that there is potential for this article to be expanded. There's only just little to expand on in its current form as it is focused primarily on the blackout and not the storm that occurred in August 2015.

@Marino13: as the editor who originally created the article. Northwest (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As someone who lived and worked without electricity for two weeks after the Great Storm of 1987 in southern England this looks trivial.Charles (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commemt – Interesting, thanks for the read. Although, I would think with the population density of that region it should have been worst than the Columbus Day Storm of 1962. But it occured over 25 years later. It's as if responses to storms have improved in some capacity. I feel it is safe to say that had that storm occured in the 2010's you most likely would not have gone without electricity for that amount of time. Northwest (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it would take just as long now because of the huge number of trees and powerlines brought down.Charles (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good for historical and reference purposes for the area involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgbo120 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for reference.Charles (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-useful--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GaBi (software)[edit]

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

Article contributed by a probable undisclosed COI editor has only two references, one of which is to the company's website. A BEFORE in Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com, and JSTOR [searching for "Gabi AND (thinkstep OR software)" fails to find SIGCOV in RS]. Chetsford (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This fails WP:GNG. Skirts89 (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article fails the criteria for notability at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), the relevant guideline for this type of article, because the company has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. - tucoxn\^talk 20:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meca Sapiens[edit]

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

Page relates to a non-notable machine learning architecture. Article shows signs of significant WP:SYNTH and many of the sources fail verification with regard to saying anything actually about this topic. No real indications of WP:SIGCOV but a big WP:COI issue (which is how this article came to my attention.) Simonm223 (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created a COI notice here, which may be of interest to this discussion. I would like to otherwise recuse myself from the vote. 129.173.213.205 (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it has the sources and references, keep it! Perf115 (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does not have any references that independently confer notability from what I could identify. That's why I nominated it for deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying none of the references independent of those accredited to the author of the architecture and the wikipedia page that I can access make any mention of Meca Sapiens at all. In fact none of the accessible references even mention the word "Meca". Furthermore more than half the references were published long before the architecture was conceived. Instead the entire article is a work of WP:SYNTH where the author, likely the designer of the architecture, has made statements about various concepts and cognitive theories, provided those references that mention the concepts he's remarking on, and then related his architecture to those concepts. This is what I meant by WP:SYNTH. There's nothing in the article to suggest this particular machine learning architecture is in any way notable; furthermore my attempts to ascertain any sort of coverage that meets WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG came up entirely empty. Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's another J.E. Tardy. COI and SPA problems. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NSOFT; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zion Square assault[edit]

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

Brawl (at a location in which several other altercations occured over the years - beware in searching - there are several other events at this square) with one serious injury (though later determined to be a cardiac condition not directly related to the brawl). A whole bunch of coverage in August 2012. A little bit of trial / plea bargain coverage in 2013 - and then mostly nothing. No LASTING effect or SUSTAINED coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP - Even a brief review of the sources cited in the article shows sustained coverage of the incident (e.g., this book reference from 2015). FOARP (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A few sentences. Fails INDEPTH.Icewhiz (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And this book that has a whole chapter on it? FOARP (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a book with very small chapters - in this case 2 pages per the index. It was also written close to events (2013), so not an indication of SUSTAINED. More importantly, it is not a RS - Max Blumenthal writes for RT and AlterNet and is not known for factual accuracy.Icewhiz (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this isn't very convincing. Two pages is quite significant for coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". The year after most definitely is sustained coverage. And this is still only one of two dozen references in the article. FOARP (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a RS - and trial coverage (which is what Blumenthal's two page meandering essay is) written during the trial is not an indication of SUSTAINED. This event created a whole bunch of WP:NOTNEWS coverage in 2012. A tiny bit of coverage in 2013 during the trials of a few participants (coverage dying for the most part - since subsequent investigation revealed the event to be less severe than initially reported) - and then nothing. For WP:SUSTAINED we would typically look for sources after the crime and trial in question. Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep — I will AGF here. The incident forced Israeli society to consider their issues of racism and lack of tolerance [11]; I see that as having significance. News cverage existed for a year, maybe more, and I will review some of the hits I am seeing in academic journals.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While there are several academic journal hits for "Zion square" - per my review they refer to other incidents and topics (e.g. a spate of violent incidents in 2014-2015, political rallies, safe spaces for queers, etc. etc.). The location itself is very well studied (possibly the most studied modern street location in Western Jerusalem) - both due to its use in political rallies, and being a focal point / intersection point for youth in the street - however coverage of other incidents/phenomena in Zion Square does not make this 2012 incident notable (though it does complicate BEFOREing). Icewhiz (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Page title is wildly inaccurate as a description of a teenage rumble between the Sharks and the Jets, with highly overblown language and use of some highly partisan sourcing. Rumble in Zion Square would be more like it, although, if we are going to write an article about every time two groups of young men hanging out on the street corner start throwing punches....E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That you can describe a hate attack where a group attempted to beat someone to death as a 'west-side story rumble' is so amazingly offensive I am surprised you are even allowed to edit IP articles. The Judge described it as a lynching. I suppose he was 'partisan' too. I suggest you restrict your comments to actual policy-based arguments instead of bullshit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, let's keep it civil here. It doesn't matter what the nature of what took place is. What matters is whether there was sufficient significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to indicate notability. FOARP (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep More typical Wikipedia Zionist bullshit, where every dead Israeli Jew merits an encyclopedia article but no Palestinian qualifies for an article unless she or he can be maligned. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lions' Gate stabbings, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Halamish stabbing attack and Malik Shabazz. If we are going to have an article for stabbings of settlers in occupied territories, which the person who nominated this article say clearly belong in the encyclopedia, then lynchings in Jerusalem with coverage well beyond either of those articles certainly pass that same standard. nableezy - 01:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles on events that have SUSTAINED coverage. Some attacks do, many do not. This particular incident - does not have such coverage - possibly since while it was a sensation in the initial August 2012 news cycle - the subsequent investigation and trial resulted in a less sensationalist outcome. Icewhiz (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, reporting that went on for a year in the Israeli national press.... sounds pretty sustained to me. FOARP (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Less than a year. One major (national and international) coverage spurt in August 2012. Minor coverage (brief) on a plea bargain in May 2013, and additional coverage on 8 July 2013 (verdict). So - no - far from continuous coverage that "went on for a year in the Israeli national press" - and one one would expect, for a notable event, sustained coverage after the end of the event (e.g. from 2014-15 onwards). Icewhiz (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, as noted, plentiful references for those years exist. 1 2 3 4 5. Your point here is that even with the references in the article the coverage lasted "only" ~ten-eleven months and "not a year"? This should have been Speedy Kept TBH. FOARP (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The sources used talk for themselves. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is already in WP:SNOW territory. FOARP (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 420 (dinghy). Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Club 420[edit]

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

This mostly unsourced one-paragraph article would make more sense as a section in the article for 420_(dinghy). The two boats are not sufficiently dissimilar to warrant a separate article. Merging would make the most sense. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC) Mr. Swordfish[reply]

Merge: As I outlined above, the Club 420 and the International 420 are basically the same boat. The club version is heavier (i.e. more durable for club usage) and has a different mast. Some of the running rigging may be different (i.e. simpler on the club version) , but no more than the variations you would see among boats of the same class. Support merging into 420_(dinghy). Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Was I the only person who expected "Club 420" to be about something different? FOARP (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deletion are the reasons for creation ironically. The Club 420 is NOT a 420 the club 420 shouldn't really use the 420 logo, the club 420 is NOT international it bearly exist out of north America where there is also I420 association, they have different administration and champions. It the fact the product looks very similar it needs seperate page as it makes it clear. interestingly no one has expanded the club 420 page with north American champions etc. It does need editing but it is important not to imply by having it on the same page that it is a linked product in any way User yachty4000 10:54 12 January 2019

The C420 is very much a "linked product" to the I420. When US manufacturer Vanguard Sailboats started building the I420 they offered a sturdier, simplified version for club usage, the C420. They did the same thing with the 470 (although the club 470 ceased production over 20 years ago). It's a variant, not a separate design.

I understand that you hold the opinion that the C420 is not a "real" 420, and that it shouldn't use the logo, but that's only opinion. While it is true that the C420 is mainly a North American phenomena, I don't see how that's relevant. Agree that there are different class associations and different championships, and several other differences. These differences can be clearly explained in one article rather than two.

When I edit Wikipedia, I try to bear in mind that the vast majority of readers know little or nothing about the subject and strive to present a clear and concise introduction for the uninitiated. FOARP's take is probably fairly typical. "A 420 is a sailboat?" The I420 article clearly states this in the first sentence. The C420 page sends the user on a snipe hunt with "The Club 420 is a derivative of the International 420 that is popular internationally." and you have to click on the link to find out what an International 420 might be. Granted that can be fixed with a simple edit, but for the typical user learning that the 420 is a small sailboat that comes in two variants is sufficient. Hair-splitting by editors very close to the subject matter does not serve the general audience.

I don't know that there's a lot to be said about the C420, which may explain why the article is still a one-paragrapher after seven years. That indicates to me that it doesn't merit a separate article. If enough material gets added to justify a branch, then we can address that at the time. For now, let's just merge the two. We can always add material to the merged article expanding on the differences between the two classes and that may be more illuminating to the casual user than separate articles. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: After more than 7 years this page has developed into very little. It should be merged with the article on the International 420. Dolphin (t) 10:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge onto "420 (dinghy)". Not enough out there to support independent notability or independent encyclopaedic interest. -The Gnome (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 420 (dinghy). -- RoySmith (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2019 (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) 16:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel Tank Chicago[edit]

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

Looks like a load of fashionable nonsense lacking notability or secondary RS. Last AfD discussion 13 years ago [12]; little change since [13]. François Robere (talk) 14:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - As usual I started out ready to delete this, but once I did my WP:BEFORE sources popped up: 1 2 3 4 5. whilst the subject matter might seem like nonsense, well, this doesn't make it not encyclopedic. FOARP (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All but #3 are primary, and the author of source #3 doesn't seem notable. François Robere (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The subject being "fashionable nonsense" does have relevance to this discussion: first as a heuristic indicating that this has no scholarly importance and doesn't pass WP:NOTABILITY; and second as an indication for how we should write about it if it does (eg. as pseudoscience or fringe). François Robere (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FOARP, have in mind that Lauren Berlant is the founder of Feel Tank Chicago, so sources 1 and 5 you posted are automatically out. Dunno about the the rest though. François Robere, how are the 2 and 4 ones primary? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP and Jovanmilic97: Ann Cvetkovich (s. 2) is affiliated with the "Public Feelings Project", of which FTC is a part; notice that on p. 170 she refers to FTC as "one of our cells". Deborah Gould (s. 4) is mentioned here as a founder of FTC (as Debbie Gould); you'll notice in the first end note she refers to FTC as her "collaborators" and thanks them "for our ongoing conversation". François Robere (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even with that, there are a lot more scholar hits to be considered 1 2 3 4 5 6. I can't see anything more of these articles than the snippets in the Google search interface but they appear to discuss the subject and are not written by Berlant or Cvetkovich. Per WP:NEXIST it appears sources likely exist to sustain notability. FOARP (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've no access to this one. It mentiones Cvet. in the abstract, but doesn't seem otherwise related.
Same, with Berlant.
Review of Cvet., mentions FTC in passing ("For Cvetkovich, this term refers to a project in which the author and like-minded participants formed groups such as 'Feel Tank Chicago'...").
Primary source - was invited by FTC to perform work.
Already cited as s. 3 in the previous batch. Seems like the only relevant secondary source.
Doesn't mention FTC.

François Robere (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is not much beyond content written by the founders.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Irrespective of one's opinion about the group's purpose and activities, the subject simply does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability. It's a text written without sources, full of personal input, and clearly crossing over into promotional territory. Well, Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy nor is it a list of indiscriminate information. Let's just say WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After assessing everything up until now, Francois is right. There are not enough independent secondary sources that cover this organization in detail, making it fail WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bibl[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NARTIST. Google searches do not emit anything suggesting significant coverage, hence, fails WP:GNG. Hitro talk 14:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A CV-like article on a working graphic designer, supported by links to routine listings. The article makes no claim to notability and searches are finding social media listings but nothing to indicate that the subject has attained WP:BASIC / WP:ANYBIO notability. AllyD (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I concur with AllyD (talk). Google searches reveal very little information beyond social profiles and there are no third party sources that suggest this person meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Quorum816 (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG fail. A graphic designer who has a job, like 500,000 other graphic designers. Not notable.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dont have any significant coverage, failure of WP:GNG Reddragon7 (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that Eva meets WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Robin's[edit]

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

Subject doesn't meet WP:N; the referenced coverage of her consists solely of trivial or passing mentions, and some not meeting WP:RELY. NoCOBOL (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment A cursory Google News search turns up 3,800 results (two from Vogue in the first page). They are all in Italian; I don't speak Italian, nor am I familiar with the authority of various publications. 1. The sheer volume of these results implies she meets WP:GNG. 2. I do not think anyone should vote to delete unless someone with Italian language fluency + publishing knowledge can assess the 3,800 sources. --Theredproject (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find the relevant policy at this time, but a simple count of google search results is supposed to have no bearing on a move to delete. NoCOBOL (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she was lead actress in several movies (eg. Belle al Bar), presenter of several tv programs on Italian televison (eg. Primadonna on Italia 1 [14]), is still active as lead actress on stage ([15], [16]), and received plenty of coverage in newspapers, magazines and books, eg. [17] or [18], several books describe Robins as the "most famous transgender in Italy" ([19], or [20]). The article is shitty (it says nothing about the career), but BTW almost all the current coverage is NOT trivial/passing mentions, the listed articles are all about the subject, she even appears in the title! Source 5 is from the major Italian newspaper, Corriere della Sera. --151.74.244.146 (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject meets WP:GNG. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a clear pass of WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR#1, though either one would be enough on its own under WP:N. Plenty of coverage easily located, so article can be improved (it needs it). Note that non-English-language sources are explicitly allowed under Wikipedia policy. Bakazaka (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2019 (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. No case to answer. If you want to change the name, file a request at WP:RM. As the page is a redirect, you'd need to send it to WP:RFD if you wanted it deleting. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles de Lannoy, 1st Prince of Sulmona.[edit]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Error in article name. There's a dot in the article name.

Actually, it should be speedy deleted. I do not know where to request a speedy deletion. ––AiPee213-100 (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have no idea what's going on here. Yeah, the sourcing of the article is bad but, assuming this IS the Charles de Lannoy who was a general for Charles V, sources can easily be found: 1 2 3 4 5. FOARP (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nominator has not presented a policy-based cause for deletion. After the creation of this AFD, the article was moved to the proper title (without the extraneous period). Although unsourced in its current state, sources are trivially available – this doesn't fail WP:N. I suppose a claim can be made that the period-equipped redirect left from the move could be deleted as an implausible redirect, but WP:RFD is that way; this venue does not address redirects. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FOARP. AD ^Talk 14:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE: There is a typo in the article name. Please see Charles de Lannoy, 1st Prince of Sulmona vs Charles de Lannoy, 1st Prince of Sulmona.. Why is there a dot in the article name, for god's sake. I created a redirect from Charles de Lannoy, 1st Prince of Sulmona. to Charles de Lannoy, 1st Prince of Sulmona. I just want this useless redirect page to be deleted. Cheers, ––AiPee213-100 (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Vladimir Ovchinnikov (graffiti artist). -- RoySmith (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery repressed (Borovsk)[edit]

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

A non-notable Monument of regional scale. The main information is in the article Vladimir Ovchinnikov.--RTY9099 (talk) 21:08, 27 December 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 December 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has a substantial article here on Ovchinnikov that also includes quite an indepth discussion of this memorial so at the least, a redirect may be appropriate. note: i have not gsearched for non-english sources. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My mhealth[edit]

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

I believe this page is one of many articles created by a paid editor. It does not pass WP:CORP and has been ref-bombed. Skirts89 (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article. Nobody paid me. I have no conflict of interest. There are 7 independent sources for the article. The NHS has invested public money in the company. Rathfelder (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The "7 independent sources" are of questionable validity, since they seem to be paid PR pieces. It does not matter if the NHS has invested in these companies, that does not indicate WP:GNG. Skirts89 (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So have you any evidence to suggest any of these sources, which include a government site, were paid? Rathfelder (talk) 09:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the nominator, I stand by my initial thought process - this fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Skirts89 (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; sourcing is in passing, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NCORP. -The Gnome (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. The sources are either not independent, routine business announcements, or just passing mentions. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2019 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Prophet (rapper)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NM. There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Flooded with them hundreds 08:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Flooded with them hundreds 08:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Flooded with them hundreds 08:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Flooded with them hundreds 08:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:PROMO, most of the content of the article appears to have been added by an editor who has only ever worked on this page so I have WP:COI suspicions as well. Also fails WP:GNG since no significant coverage in reliable sources could be found of Prophet (and not the Rise of the Revolution duo) other than the Tahoe Daily piece (which is an interview). I think User:Flooded with them hundreds did the best he could with his previous edits of the page but it doesn't get it over the bar. FOARP (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Reads almost like a promotion. I could not find significant, reliable coverage and Prophet does not appear to meet any of the requirements of NMUSIC.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly written article. Doesn't seem notable. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2019 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hero's Heart (video game)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Reliable video game web source search returns 0 useful results and I'm unable find any evidence of print sources covering the game. The1337gamer (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.~~ PriceDL (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate listing; already listed on the Video games delsort page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone took the time to see my edits, they'd know I added additional sources after this proposal for deletion. One of those sources is the creator of the games' own Website? And, if you read the actual article, you'll see that I'm just using a screenshot of the actual game's In-Game documentation that is hosted by MobyGames to provide reference data, not MobyGames themselves. This is kinda insane to be honest...I think 2x sources and a screenshot are qualified for bare minimums on a game that came out during an era where documentation is going to obviously be lax. --EarthBoundX5 (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To establish notability for Wikipedia, you need independent reliable sources (eg. review in published/online magazine with regular staff). Your sources are either not independent on the article subject, or user generated content. In both cases not reliable sources in Wikipedia sense. Pavlor (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So if an object doesn't get printed in a review, it is doomed to be lost to time? That seems unbelievably against the whole notion of preservation of knowledge...something I thought Wikipedia favored? It also seems to remove the concept of wikipedia all together...taking historical records out of the media and into a user generated realm, not the other way waround. Don't delete something because it's hard to find a source that reviewed it...if the author's site has evidence (http://www.kaser.com/mesh.html), 3rd party sites show evidence (https://www.classicdosgames.com/game/Hero's_Heart.html), and the media itself is shown as evidence (https://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/209599-hero-s-heart-dos-screenshot-nag-screen.png)...then that should be more than sufficient for a page to sit for others to add to over years? Do I need to petition some big media outlet to publish a story referencing the same martial I have in order for wikipedia to consider it sufficient? That seems crazy? And my god...wikipedia itself is user generated content... Would physical scans of the media uploaded to wikipedia be source material enough? Do I need to start digging through magazines from the early 90s that never made it to the Internet to prove this case? If so, then I know wikipedia is truly a dead source of knowledge. --EarthBoundX5 (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there was some review published magazine in the early 1990s, then that would be (probably) really good source for notability. I agree it is somewhat hard to find non-online sources, but this task is not impossible, as many magazine scans are now online. Notability requirements of Wikipedia are now much higher than few years ago: page that was acceptable back then is now doomed to fail at AfD. Pavlor (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This was a Shareware game, many of which were never reviewed by any magazine but simply listed in advertising. My WP:BEFORE turned up nothing, therefore fails WP:GNG. Don't worry, Moby Games and other sites will preserve it. FOARP (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As well as a fruitless standard search, I also couldn't find any significant coverage in a search of archive.org's magazine scans. (There was an ad listing in Micro Sistemas (Brazil) that included a title of this name, but that's far from significant coverage.) While it can be a little tricky to find information on games from this era, it's normally possible to find far more than this for any notable title. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, this seems to fail WP:GNG. Lowercaserho (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, home made game. no search engine results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perf115 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2019 (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) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

German West Africa[edit]

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

The lemma is phantasy. There was never anything like a "Deutsch-Westafrika" / German West Arica. The designation did not exist, neither an administrative unit. The article gives not one source for it. The names for 2 companies just say these were German companies trading in West Africa.

The quoted source for Deutsch-Westafrikanische Handelsgesellschaft (1) does not exist; Schnee's book discusses missions in Africa on the quoted pages, no companies. The article can be deleted. Kipala (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT We really need DE-language input for this, because a very large number of German-language sources are included in the DE Wiki version of this page. I do see references to it in various books (e.g., 1 2 3) but I'd like a better indication of WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT This is an odd one. It has survived on de.wiki for 9 years which might suggest that the term 'Deutsch-Westafrika' was generally accepted by German readers, but apart from a few bots most of the editing on the article has been done by its originator so it's hard to know how widely-accepted the term is. There is certainly evidence that the term was used during the colonial period, but not that widely. For example [21], [22]; there are also a few contemporary uses of the term e.g. [23]. It's pretty thin-looking but I'm reluctant to zap the en.wiki article on grounds suggested when the de.wiki original does not seem to have attracted any controversy. Mccapra (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm..... does WP:GEOLAND apply here? I mean it seems to have been a name for an inhabited geographical unit? FOARP (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: I can speak German very well (I need to update my babel userbox), I'd say the coverage I've pulled from books.google.de seems to be just descriptive insofar as it describes several companies trading in West Africa while it was under German administration. Whether that makes GEOLAND applicable or not, I don't know, but as a term it doesn't appear to have gained a significant amount of traction or been declared a polity in its own right. So I'm on the fence. SITH (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT well the Deutsch-Westafrikanische Handelsgesellschaft certainly did exist- here is one of its share certificates [24]. Definitely not a polity but we have articles for similar constructs such as British West Indies - meaningful, used historically to some extent, but never official. Mccapra (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This definitely passes WP:GNG and needs to be kept. As a previous commenter mentioned, the DE version of Wikipedia is better, so we probably need help improving this article in EN. Skirts89 (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think I’ve persuaded myself we should keep it. I’d be happy to work on it as Skirts89 suggests. Mccapra (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or turn it into a dab page. I see no evidence the term is widely used in the way British West Indies is. It really is just a term sometimes used for Cameroon, sometimes for Cameroon + Togo and sometimes for Cameroon + Togo + South-West Africa. This could be cleared up with a dab page. What would a separate article cover over and above the articles on the actual colonies? Effort would be better spent on German West African Company than this article. Srnec (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND and WP:UE. "German West Africa" is the English translation of "Deutsche West-Afrika". It appeared as such on comtemporary English language maps, atlases and globes. Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While sometimes used in English language publications to refer to German Southwest Africa, i.e. Namibia, (e.g [25]), German West Africa has been referred to in English as a separate region. E.g. Colonialism in Africa 1870-1960 "German West Africa was looked upon as a tropical region, totally distinct from South-West Africa, which the Germans meant to turn into a white man's country." As for official designation, Deutsche Welle has referred to Gustav Nachtigal as "German imperial commissioner for German West-Africa". Germany and Cameroon shed light on shared colonial past. In combination with the German language sources at the DE version, these sources support keep. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see multiple modern gbook hits with this term. The dewiki entry (as well as a few other interwiki links) and sourcing therein is convincing as well. Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a legitimate historiographic term. The sourcing present in the German Wiki article suggest that this very likely meets WP:GNG. This appears to be a case of an article that needs expansion, not deletion. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2015 Mississippi gubernatorial election. RL0919 (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gray (Mississippi politician)[edit]

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

This was previously nominated for deletion several years ago but kept as he had not yet lost or won the 2015 Mississippi gubernatorial election. As he has now lost and not held public office, he fails WP:NPOL and likely fails WP:N as well. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 10:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 10:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 10:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL. All the coverage is WP:MILL election coverage. Bkissin (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 07:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2015 Mississippi gubernatorial election. A redirect to an election page is a usual and appropriate outcome for a candidate for a statewide or provincial executive officer. It is possible to add any relevant details about the subject to the page about the election. --Enos733 (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nom Comment - I do support this redirect. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Enos733. SportingFlyer T·C 05:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It's true that sometimes, if the election campaign that a person is running in is currently underway, people will confuse current newsiness with enduring permanent notability. But the fact is that simply being a non-winning candidate is still not an article-clinching notability claim in and of itself — even at the state gubernatorial level, a candidate still needs to either (a) already have had preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten them an article anyway, such as having served in the state legislature or having passed notability standards in another career prior to entering politics, or (b) show a depth, range and volume of coverage that marks their non-winning candidacy out as a special case over and above most other people's non-winning candidacies. But neither of those things is in evidence here at all. A small amount of information about him can certainly be included in the election article itself, but nothing here meets the standard of actually earning him his own separate biographical article as a standalone topic. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2019 (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 deleted G7 (author request). Fram (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Persecuted In Search of Change[edit]

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

Only source is a book announcement repeated in a few papers (so basically one source, the New Era article[26]. No evidence could be found that this book had any impact after the release, no actual reviews, no evidence for the award or for being best-selling. Even the author is barely notable (if at all) for a court case that got some attention, but not for this book. Fram (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:NEXIST (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 20, 1955 Stadium (Béchar)[edit]

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

The requirement under WP:NGEO is that an article has significant independent coverage. While it is true that there are numerous mentions of this stadium under its common name in various media, I cannot find a mention that passes WP:SIGCOV - namely, a mention that addresses the stadium directly and in detail. Instead, all the mentions are in discussions of matches that were played in the Stadium and thus do not meet the requirement. With that said, I would be surprised if there was nothing out there, though scouring the other Wikipedia's suggest that this may be the case; if something could be found I would have zero objection to a Speedy Keep. NoCOBOL (talk) 07:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's at least coverage here, and considering it's the home of a team which frequently appears in continental competitions I'm sure there's more per WP:NEXIST: [27] [28] [29] SportingFlyer talk 04:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Searching for the name of the stadium in French, which is Stade 20 Août 1955 (Béchar), I found a lot of news and sources talking about it as it can be found here. It's also the home of Algerian side JS Saoura, a club that plays in the Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1, the top tier league of the Algerian football league system and also plays in the 2018–19 CAF Champions League and reached the group stage; so it's surely going to be needed. Note that I've previously nominated the article for renaming to Stade 20 Août 1955 (Béchar) per WP:COMMONNAME. Ben5218 (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a lot of the same sources, but the issue is that the mentions are trivial, such as the example I posed above where it is talking about x match at the stadium. These are not sufficient to meet the requirements for notability. NoCOBOL (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's plenty of sources, though. Of course a brief mention in a match article doesn't count, but there are enough articles which discuss the actual stadium to make this a clear keep. SportingFlyer T·C 05:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The refs noted above look fine to me. Szzuk (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2019 (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. Keep voters have offered sources that were not addressed by the nominator or rebutted by anyone else. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Awareness Month[edit]

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

A poorly sourced article. The only sources that are not by the so-called Zombie Research Society consist of a joke article(1), an interview with the creator(7), an article which appearantly contains factual errors(5) and a blog(4). The only thing that could possible make it notable is source 8, but it's a part-interview article and not about the topic, but instead it is about a zombie apocalypse course and it does not mention Zombie Awareness Month at all. It fails WP:NEVENT, especially WP:INDEPTH. » Shadowowl | talk 11:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A badly source joke of an article about someone'S joke movement. --Calton | Talk 04:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Joke or not it's gotten coverage it seems.★Trekker (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I was all ready to vote delete on this but, yeah, it seems this joke did actually (just) get significant coverage 1 2 3. I think the CDC part in particular should be added to the article, as this shows the idea going beyond a joke into soemthing for promoting disaster preparedness. FOARP (talk) 08:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It certainly seems that there is sustained, significant coverage - from at last 2011 that I can easily see online, and in the US and UK (there's even an "An Oxford Companion to surviving a zombie apocalypse" [30] - yes, it's on OUP's blog, but does give an idea of the spread of awareness about the Zombie Awareness Month!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perf115 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per A7. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United Shane Dawson Conspiracy Series[edit]

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

The Article contains no sources, also the article fails WP:BLP. Sheldybett (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:TVSHOW. Just "announcing" that there is going to be a show is meaningless, even more so, when it is a YouTube show where the person can say whatever they want without any obligations. Once it is released AND shows notability from RS, an article can be started. --Gonnym (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday Havan[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability - appears to be simply a promotional article for a specific web-site. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 06:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's quite unclear whether this article is about a specific event or a type of event, but regardless, there isn't enough substantive coverage in reliable sources to justify an article. The article is also filled with original research, and contains some exceptional claims not supported by the sources used. Vanamonde (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like pure spam. There is no indication of notability. Does not pass WP:GNG. Skirts89 (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 10:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Reddragon7 (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Novasophy[edit]

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

not asserted as a movement but rather as a definition WP:WINAD. I haven't found a single reputable source with information on the term (just an "Executive Search enterprise software" of the same name Noahhoward (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2019 (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/2019 January 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been a PROD, but since we're here, delete as WP:NEO article clearly intended to use Wikipedia to spread usage of the term. Bakazaka (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is a dictionary definition. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dictdef at best. --Lockley (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2019 (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. Lourdes has posted sources to prove that subjects meets WP:NBOOK, there seems to be agreement that is enough. Clear consensus here. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Juino[edit]

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

just one wordpress references and article has not any reliable sources. Wikipedia is not right place for advertisement. AD ^Talk 18:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. AD ^Talk 18:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [31] might be reasonable coverage in Nepali, but Google Translate is not good enough to assess this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aside Google Translate is not good enough to assess anything. Trillfendi (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Does not seem to meet WP:NB MarkH21 (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revise to Keep MarkH21 (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NBOOK, the book "has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published work".^[32][33][34] Typical Western-bias shouldn't stop non-English books from being covered. Lourdes 04:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the unfounded accusations of "Western-bias", the previous judgment was based on the lone existing source given in the article and our own searches which clearly did not find these sources. I'll revise to Keep on this evidence of meeting WP:NB. MarkH21 (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mark; it's not targeted at any editor. Systemic bias is quite common when English-speaking editors are not able to translate foreign language sources and therefore ignore those in favour of English sources (which quite often do not exist for such regions). Thanks, Lourdes 06:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per refs noted above. Szzuk (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Droege[edit]

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

BLP with no references. Appears to be his cv. Rathfelder (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article identifies him as "Professor and Chairholder at the University of Liechtenstein", so he may pass WP:NACADEMIC Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting he isn't notable. But articles about living people have to have references. Rathfelder (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added a reference from a newspaper in Australia. One of his books has been cited by 149 works, and another by 110. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Peter+Droege&btnG= Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very happy to withdraw this nomination now. Thank you for your help. I was trying to classify academics by nationality. Do we know if he is a Liechtensteiner? Rathfelder (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article text as it stands is problematic: a promotionally-toned WP:COPYVIO of this page. The problem was introduced by this IP edit in January 2018. It may be appropriate to revert to the earlier version to remove the Copyvio, before commencing to introduce properly referenced text which meets the WP:BLP requirements. AllyD (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suspected something like this. Rathfelder (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Trillfendi (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Because of the tenured Eastmain's comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Copyvio removed from page, currently still in history. ^{[Username Needed]} 11:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete. No refs, no article. Perf115 (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG Mgbo120 (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Move it to userspace draft and find more reliable sources. Also, copyedit required. ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:52, 18 January 2019 (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. The nominator withdrew and this is as close to WP:SNOW anyway. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Fret[edit]

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

Fails GNG: Only passing references. Fails SNG: No evidence of a national tour or major label. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. (I used Twinkle, so I don't know how to remove all the traces.) Although not referenced in the article, the People and BBC News articles provide adequate indication of notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin you mean you want to withdraw this nomination? AD ^Talk 06:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- there seems to be a fair share of coverage (see here, all be it more about the subject's death than their actual music. Perhaps a Speedy Keep too since the nominator seems to have withdrawn their nomination. Inter&anthro (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable to be on wikipedia. AD ^Talk 06:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. May be an AfD candidate in the future if there's no increase in notable coverage. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the subject meets WP:GNG. "Page appearing weird" is not a valid deletion rationale per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minhocão (legendary creature)[edit]

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

Fails GNG; could not find any non-fringe sources to support notability. –dlthewave ☎ 03:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Sourcing is plentiful: 1 2. FOARP (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Listverse.com is made up of user-submitted lists, a marginal source at best. Catalan Review, however, seems to be a reliable source for the folklore. –dlthewave ☎ 18:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some popular culture 'weird stuff' type sources discusses it, e.g. [35], [36], which may not be suitable sources on which to base an article, but there are some older sources from over quite a range of years that I think are harder to dismiss as usable sources, although none of course are evidence that the creature ever existed, e.g. ''Annals & Magazine of Natural History, The Popular Science Monthly, Nature, Chambers's Journal, Harper's Weekly. I think this one probably falls into the category of local folklore that early naturalist-explorers investigated, and which later became of interest to cryptozoologists. --Michig (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Century-old publications are primary sources. They would need to be supplemented by reliable secondary sources that represent current viewpoints; an article can't be written entirely from a 19th-century perspective. –dlthewave ☎ 18:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Page appears weird. Fails WP:GNG Mgbo120 (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the sources I identified above, there are over 20 articles in British newspapers from the 1870s and 1880s discussing the Minhocão and attempts to find it. It seems to be a significant topic of Brazillian folklore if nothing else. --Michig (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Rewritten using the available sources, none of which are fringe publications. I think notability is now clear. --Michig (talk) 09:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The rewritten version appears to satisfy WP:GNG (sources are plentiful, and the ones I can access make non-trivial mentions), though I would prefer if more open-access sources could be provided. ComplexRational (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Before the rewrite I would have said delete, but now the article is much better. Tommy has a great username (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be well sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The suggestion to redirect to The Nunda, Eater of People looked like a good WP:ATD, but mngwa isn't even mentioned there, other than as a See Also back to here. If somebody wants to add (reliably sourced) information about Mngwa to The Nunda, Eater of People, they can do so on their own. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mngwa[edit]

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

Fails GNG; could not find acceptable reliable sources to establish notability. Existing sources and those found through searching are fringe and/or non-rs. –dlthewave ☎ 03:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP Sources are provided in the article, there has been no engagement at all with what they say by the nom. This is part of a months-long campaign of deletion nominations against Cryptids by the nom. FOARP (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources were present when I nominated the article for deletion. The first, Mystery Cats of the World, was written by fringe author and "cryptozoologist" Karl Shuker and was removed by another editor per WP:FRIND. The second, Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World, also appears to be a fringe theory promoter. –dlthewave ☎ 03:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP, capitalizing youir suggestion does not render it stronger; it just makes your post the equivalent in a real-life dialogue of shouting. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The controlling content guideline here is WP:FRINGE, and I'm markedly unconvinced that Mystery Cats of the World is "independent of [the] promulgators and popularizers" of cryptozoology. However, in this particular instance, there's a clearly notable redirect target: The Nunda, Eater of People, an article (albeit a stubby one in need of improvement) about the traditional Swahili fairy tale (which is almost certainly the origin for stories of the cryptozoological animal, and which could warrant a brief mention of the cryptid after sourcing and expansion per WP:DUE). Note that "Nunda" and "Mngwa" are (and reliable sources can confirm) variant spellings of the same word; the orthography for Swahili written with the English alphabet was not immediately standardized. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Mgbo120 (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious WP:GNG fail. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates our fringe guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Nunda, Eater of People. Essentially a folklore/fairy-tale creature that is covered better there. There is some coverage from Popular Science Monthly, and Desmond Morris's 2006 book Fantastic Cats: A Feast of Famed and Fabled Felines. It's a creature of folklore, which is the basis on which it should be judged, but since it's synonymous with Nunda, it would be better to just cover it there. --Michig (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per FOARP. Also, please do WP:BEFORE [37].Tamsier (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A long list of Google Books results does not mean that WP:GNG and WP:NFRINGE are satisfied. I see a number of obvious fringe sources in that search: Books by cryptozoologists Heuvelmans [38], Shuker [39] and Coleman [40], as well as a book of "gruesome true stories" which includes the fictional beast [41]. Which sources, specifically, are you using to support notability? –dlthewave ☎ 22:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No sources exist for this non-existing entity. -The Gnome (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2019 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vinith Misra[edit]

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

Vanity page, built out of excerpts from the person's CV. Not linked to by any other Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inventingfacts (talk • contribs)

Delete | The page does not appear to be of great relevance except one. Vivek Rai (talk)
Procedural Note: This nomination was not transcluded for discussion and was missing the AfD Template. I have corrected both, please use the time of this comment as the listing time when closing. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO Mgbo120 (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick delete. Not enough reliable sources to back up its notability. ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of English cricketers (1787–1825). Clear consensus that a redirect should happen. One of the users found some sources, but admitted that the found material is not enough. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J. James (1814 cricketer)[edit]

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

Amateur cricketer who made three first-class appearances in his entire playing career. I was unable to locate any additional in-depth sources about him specifically. Hell, we don't even have a first name.

I understand that WP:NCRIC deems a single first-class appearance to be enough to claim notability, but in the absence of any significant in-depth commentary about him (as opposed to just statistical information), he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep for now. As the English would say, that's a sticky wicket and an issue too widespread to be decided in a single AfD. Redirect per below. He's no different from pretty much everyone I examined at random in Category:English cricketers of 1787 to 1825. We don't even know the first initial, much less the given name, of Cantrell (Middlesex cricketer). Early baseball is better documented, but we still have people like William Ahearn, who is known to have played one lousy game. (He did allow seven passed balls, which is admittedly an impressive feat.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of English cricketers (1787–1825) as the result of the discussion at Talk:Chitty (cricketer) would seem to be the best option in this case. The cases are similar in nature, although James played in three matches rather than one and we do have a first initial to work with. Ultimately it's extremely unlikely that we're going to be able to build a biography of James (or Cantrell for that matter). The definitions of first-class cricket at the time he played his matches are a little more problematic. I'm happy if there needs to be a more widespread discussion about cases such as these, but we appear to have lists of cricketers that go up to 1863 as well as lists for many major British teams as well - MCC for example goes back to 1787, although we generally don't have lists for pre-county clubs (except, oddly, a start on a Middlesex list) - but in most cases the general lists up to 1863 will do the job.

In my view the case of Ahearn (7 PB and 2 errors....) is slightly more complex as we actually have a fuller name and dates, but I see the parallel and would be happy to discuss on a broader basis across sports if necessary. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As nom, I'm also fine with a redirect; if I'd realized that list existed I might have done it myself. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of English cricketers (1787–1825). Hopefully more research can be done on these obscure cricketers. Sometimes, like with R. N. Lee (who had no known first or middle name, or dates of birth/death) a bit of research can shed some light on them. StickyWicket (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of English cricketers (1787–1825) as said. Fails WP:GNG for nowMgbo120 (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Cricket Archive seems to have 3 matches listed for James: on 13 Jul 1814, 13 Aug 1817, and 1 Jun 1818. Newspapers.com has notices/announcements for the fist each ([42], [43], and [44]) and results for the 1817 game ([45]). James is not listed in any of the notices/announcements, nor in the results (which are very brief). For what is worth regarding Ahearn, I find a report of the game ([46]) and a few later notes about a liquor dealer with that name in Troy during his life (such as [47] or [48]). I'm generally in favor of doing whatever possible to make articles about sportspeople and socialites of these eras, but I don't find material to suggest either individual is particularly encyclopedic. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bradley Braves men's basketball. Topic is not notable for a standalone page. Be careful when merging due to concerns raised about existing copyright violations. —Bagumba (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Basketball Team of the Century[edit]

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

Nearly every major college (350+ at the top division) have an all-century team - these aren’t notable enough for stand-alone article and generally are only covered by the school and the local media, not sufficient for WP:GNG. I suggest the content be merged into Bradley Braves men's basketball and the stand-alone be deleted. Rikster2 (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge list into Bradley Braves men's basketball but omit or rewrite prose: It's a potential copyright violation because of close paraphrasing from page 11 of the Bradley Men's Basketball Record Book (unknown author but obviously post-1991, so copyrighted). This topic on its own doesn't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV: Every source seems to be a work of Bradley University. (The article from CSNTV is actually from the Bradley Scout student newspaper.) --Closeapple (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge until a new page is properly written. This one appears clumsyMgbo120 (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would argue that cleanup isn't the biggest problem. This honor doesn't meet notability standards, in my opinion. Not sufficient independent coverage. Rikster2 (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2019 (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.