Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 January	7 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. A clear and unanimous consensus for deletion has transpired herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

North African Muslim migrations to the Holy Land[edit]

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

"Original research" is the most positive I can say about this article. There should not be room for such unsourced material on Wikipedia Huldra (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looking into the history of the editor who wrote this article, it is beginning to look more and more like Pushing a certain POV and WP:OR. The references provided look a bit sketchy, and no real evidence is provided. Given the high tensions the Israli-Palestinian conflict has on Wikipedia, articles related to it should be held to a high standard of reliability and citations. The user who started the articles conduct here and here shows that they are very opinonated concerning this subject. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly sourced, and it reads like a machine translation of the he.wiki article. (I think editors should be applauded for translating decent articles from one language to another, but a reasonable knowledge of English seems lacking here, as idioms are translated literally.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The sourcing (or lack thereof) and motives of the article creator are too sketchy in my review of this article. An abundance of original research was compiled by an editor who it appears evident was pushing a POV and was incredibly disruptive in doing so. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for such editors, especially in a topic area that can get heated for some.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Poorly veiled WP:POV fork from a highly disruptive WP:POV warrior. Not to mention the quality of writing and sourcing easily fails the requirements for the highly contentious topic of WP:A/I/PIA Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Inter&anthro. Several North African articles have been affected by the same problem for years.Tamsier (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I raised my concerns about the sources at the talk page some time ago, but they were not addressed. There are no WP:RS supporting the body of the article. Also the phrasing of the article title is POV as it suggests one-way migration – the sources I have read on this topic suggest two-way minor migration. Coincidentally(?!), this morning some of those sources were removed from another article here [1]. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the topic is something that "could" be a page with the addition of scholarly sources on the matter. The page now is written almost like a propaganda piece with a motive and poor sources. One of the sources is literally a google map pin. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:40, 13 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. Sandstein 07:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Goosebumps characters[edit]

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

There is simply not enough continuity in the Goosebumps franchise to have a list of characters without being too trivial, except for Slappy the Dummy, who has his own article. Thus, the list is grossly inomplete and the character details are very short and sketchy. In short, I am nominating this for the same reason it was deleted in 2010.

The casting information belongs in the relevant film and television articles (the former of which already includes this information). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. postdlf (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this was already deleted and the reasoning is still the same. None of the characters are notable enough on their own to make a list of them sufficient. Ajf773 (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per User:Ajf773 as non-notable fancruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this article had any substance to it I’d say redirect, but clearly it doesn’t.Trillfendi (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I do not see any coverage that would support the notability of this list. Aoba47 (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I almost never !vote delete, but this list makes no sense as the Goosebumps series has very little if any continuity between books, and then only as direct sequels to previous books.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 02:07, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dominican Republic Secretaries of Public Administration[edit]

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

Prodded twice. In August 2009, it was prodded on grounds that only one person had ever held this then-new office; it was subsequently deprodded because "there will be more" in the future and thus it is expandable – whuch violates WP:CRYSTAL! Now, over 9 years later, no new people have been added to the list, nor have any attempts been made to establish that the sole entry (Ramón Ventura Camejo), or even the Secretary of Public Administration itself, is notable. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was the one who prodded it a second time, because there is, in its present form, 1 person listed, a red link. My rational was Unneeded list, only contains 1 entry (a redlink), hasn't been improved in 5 years, and I was planning to nominate this myself. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless article as there is only one name on the list and even that person doesn't have an article. Ajf773 (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to Cabinet of the Dominican Republic, the same person listed here still holds the position today — but we don't need a list of just one person, especially since he doesn't even have an article to link to yet (and he doesn't even have one in Spanish yet, either!) If we had an article about the government department itself, then it could certainly contain an embedded list — but a government office which doesn't have an article yet doesn't need a standalone "list" of a single holder, when that same information is already available in another article anyway. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There has not change the minister so far. When a create the page was because in DR were change frecuently. This wasn't the case. Drawdennep (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2019 (-4:00 GMT)

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 00:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Floow Limited[edit]

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

minor award, minor investments, no major product. I removed spam, but there is no underlying `ny DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: An article on a technology firm featuring their appearance on an early-stage company list and receipt of a Queen's Awards for Enterprise. The 2016 WIRED article about their use of smartphone-based data gathering is probably more about product than company but could perhaps contribute towards supporting notability. (Similar text summarising the company's product proposition had been also placed at Usage-based_insurance#UK, which may be sufficient.) A case study of an earlier SMS-based product can also be found: [2]. Regarding the company itself, there is a relatively detailed interview-based item from 2014 here, but it is on the site of an entity which had given a Business Loan Fund grant so cannot be considered a fully independent source. I don't see the sum of the available sources as enough to establish WP:NCORP notability at this time. AllyD (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; clearly WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:03, 13 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 00:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kent/Sussex Detoxification Center[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I got a few hits on Google Books, but they're a bit strange - see:

Addiction Recovery Tools: A Practical Handbook
Addiction Medicine: Science and Practice, Volume 1
Clinical Addiction Psychiatry

Each of these books mentions the Kent/Sussex Detoxification Center - but all using exactly the same text, word for word. I don't have access to the books, but they all appear to be edited collections (from reputable publishers) - perhaps the same article, written by someone related to the center, being submitted to multiple collections? It's talking about acupuncture in alleviating addiction - might be worth a medical editor with experience in this area taking a look, I'll drop a note at WikiProject Medicine. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Agree needs more coverage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:42. Alexbrn (talk) 08:12, 8 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 Robert Gordon University. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 06:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

School of Computing (Robert Gordon University)[edit]

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

Non notable school of a university, could merge but there is very little of value Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the university. Searching with various phrases, I found coverage of joint projects but nothing much about the school itself. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Some reasonable information in there, but nothing requiring it's own article. Could easily be added into the article about the university itself. --IrnBruFan7 (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and redirect to Robert Gordon University -as User: IrnBruFan7 said, there is nothing requiring its own article. Vorbee (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and redirect to main Robert Gordon University article. As noted there is nothing really to justify a separate article. Dunarc (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and redirect to Robert Gordon University. Kraose (talk) 12:26, 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 redirect to Bond event#List. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 11:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

5.9 kiloyear event[edit]

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

Unlike the related topics 8.2 kiloyear event and 4.2 kiloyear event both of which have substantial sources (8.2 kiloyear event, 4.2 kiloyear event), I am not finding enough documentation about a "5.9 kiloyear event" to establish that it meets WP:N or WP:EVENTCRITERIA:

Google Scholar for 5.9 ka and similar search terms mostly returns incidental findings for "5.9 ka" rather than any coherent subject.
Regular Google returns mainly incidental mentions, non-reliable sources or sources that appear to be based on Wikipedia.
Of the sources in the article, most do not discuss a climate event at this time or only mention it in passing. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618206000474 does discuss such an event, but in the context of a general 7,000-5,500 climate change.
Some sources discuss a Bond event at this time but typically without much context on any extended effects, and most Bond events don't have dedicated articles unless they have substantial independent coverage, e.g Little Ice Age
As I wrote (and sourced) in African humid period, while the formation of the Sahara began about 6,000 years ago, it does not seem like there was a significant event 5,900 years ago. There was one 5,500 years ago, but that appears to relate to the Piora Oscillation not to a "5.9 ka event".

I think this article is about a concept that largely does not exist and isn't really separate enough from the regular Bond events to merit its own article. So I would recommend to redirect this article to Bond event, or delete it altogether. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bond event#List point 4. From source searches on JSTOR and Wiley, it appears that the 5.9 kiloyear event isn't referred to that per se and is taken as part of a larger spectrum of Holocene events. SITH (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely want to see the information in that article merged into some other article before replacing it with a redirect. --bender235 (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some of this information is in African humid period and Piora Oscillation. The other material is quite disparate, it'd require a complex copying. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per StraussInTheHouse. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning towards redirect for the time being but that would make most of the content missing. I'll leave this open for a while longer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 21:22, 6 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) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 06:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of road churches in Finland[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTDIR. Not even sure if the term road church is even notable. Ajf773 (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is valid content that could be included in Road church article, but apparently was split out due to length. It is a non-controversial editorial decision to split out sections from a list-article when it gets too long. The concept of road churches and their numerosity are both interesting to me, FWIW. --Doncram (talk) 07:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The top-level list includes source https://www.tiekirkot.fi/ which covers "tiekirkot" in Finland (i guess "kirk" means church, "kirkot" I am guessing is its plural, and i suppose "tie" might mean road); the source was not copied to the split out article but that is just a matter for editing. --Doncram (talk) 07:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I google "tiekirkot" and happen to click on one of the results pages and choose to translate the page to English, and drill down and down and down (and at some point am at [3]), and come to page with translated content "Meløy church is located in Fore and Meløy sokn in Bodø Domprosti. It is built in wood and was built in 1867. The church has a long and 500 seat. The church has a listed status list (after 1850). Architect: H.Mosling / JWJordan." This one happens to be in Norway not Finland, but is about a historic church on its country's version of a national register of historic places. It is my impression from traveling, that throughout Scandinavia (which technically does not include Finland, but why would it be different there?) there are these historic churches of the state Protestant religion, often/usually on their own out in the countryside, which seem obviously historic and architecturally significant and worthy of national historic registry listing, which either are under-utilized nowadays or are perfectly well-kept and continuously utilized. Probably they were always intended to be "road churches" serving a large area, to which church members would travel by roadways where those exist. Some accessible by boating across a fjord or whatever. These are certainly worth listing. --Doncram (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This concept started in Germany in the 1950s and was copied in Finland in the 1990s. In the German Wikipedia de:Kategorie:Autobahnkirche some of the churches are even named "Autobahnkirche" because they have been built near autobahn highways, but in Finland the concept is a bit different, I think. These are all normal churches except that they have agreed to be open during summertime and they have information or a guide for visitors. I don't have an opinion on the notability issue. The singular is "kirkko". :) -kyykaarme (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That may be a case of the term Road church being notable, but the list article doesn't inherit this. Ajf773 (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory Spiderone 09:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Do you think it would be possible to create articles on a couple of Churches that are listed on the article? Also describe how. I am sure that this is a notable subject but we really need some blue links for the named Churches. Anatoliatheo (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. Road church are prevalent in Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Russia. Aurornisxui (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of these churches is notable. If we were to have an indiscriminate list of every church in the UK, it would be rightly condemned. I see no difference here. Spiderone 23:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not so: some or perhaps all of these are Wikipedia-notable for individual articles, as supported by User:Aurornisxui's info below. And probably all are perfectly fine as items on a list, i.e. list-item notability can be lower threshold than individual article notability. Perhaps you could change your !vote here, User:Spiderone?

Some editors might prefer for Wikipedia lists to be built from the bottom up, i.e. create individual articles on items and only list those, building up. It is perfectly fine (and better IMHO) to develop from the top down: create a list-article and allow for development including gradual splitting out of separate articles on items of the list.

No one wants it to be an "indiscriminate list", but if you think it is, then that is a matter for editing and discussion at its Talk page, to perhaps pare off some items eventually. Probably best to let this one be developed for a while, first.

About U.K. churches, fine, see new list-article List of churches in England, which somehow we did not have until I just created it now (converted from a redirect). --Doncram (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a list of churches, it is a list of lists. Ajf773 (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note Adding links to Finnish articles on the churches. Aurornisxui (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note I checked the first 10 of these churches on the Finnish wikipedia article (used for the English version) and 8 out of 10 are listed on the National Board of Antiquities, which is a Finnish government bureau see Museovirasto (in Finnish). So list is notable based on WP:NBUILD (churches are not just merely on a list of buildings on the National Board of Antiquities site, but have a write up about each see Alajärvi Church as example). Aurornisxui (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A few links need to be developed but the subject is notable. Anatoliatheo (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Spiderone 23:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Road churches are a notable phenomenon and many of these churches are notable. It just requires translation and wikilinking. For instance, one of the churches is the Espoo Cathedral build in 1480 but it's just not translated and wikilinked. --Pudeo (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Road churches aren't notable because they are road churches, they are notable because each of them are coverage by independent secondary sources, as per WP:NCHURCH. Among this whole list, there isn't any evidence of this. Ajf773 (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If all the individual churches had been notable and had articles, this list would have been unnecessary – we could have replaced it with a category instead. But since the phenomenon is notable but all the individual manifestations aren't, collecting all of the road churches in Finland in one article is a good way to give an overview of the subject. /Julle (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, in fact that is quite the opposite. If there was notable entries then a list and category would be sufficient. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be an indiscriminate list of every single thing on one topic. Currently it offers almost no value to any reader. Ajf773 (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a valid notable subject for a list Atlantic306 (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explain your vote properly instead of making a vague statement. Ajf773 (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - Stop badgering about every comment in opposite direction of what you want. --Doncram (talk) 09:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell me what to do. Ajf773 (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note If the list is useless, it is because it needs to be edited, but not deleted. People interested in churches, churches in Finland, the concept of "road churches", architecture, religion, historical buildings, genealogy, and tourists in Finland during the summer could find this list useful.Aurornisxui (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ITSUSEFUL Spiderone 23:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have and I'm not using "useful" as an argument to keep it. But someone up thread said it was of no interest to anyone.Aurornisxui (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So what are your thoughts to making the list less useless? My thoughts personally would be remove all the non notable entries, although that would be pretty much the whole list. Ajf773 (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What would you consider to be notable? Maybe the list needs to be changed from Road churches (noting the delete comment below) and changed to historic Finnish churches, i.e. churches that are on the Finnish National Board of Antiquities. I checked and there is no such list on Wikipedia.Aurornisxui (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the concept of "road church" might be a notable subject, this is just a list that shows which Finnish churches were open for visitors in the summer of 2012. I checked the list briefly and found two churches that were not on the list for summer of 2018 on the official website https://www.tiekirkot.fi/tiekirkot/ (there might be more, I didn't keep checking when I found the two). The list for summer of 2019 is not published yet, and I don't think old lists from previous years are accessible anymore. For the list to be useful for readers, it would have to be updated every year which doesn't seem sensible (would churches be removed from the list or marked as "former" road churches?). Readers and tourists can see the list on the website. -kyykaarme (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your objection seems to me to be only that the set of road churches changes over time. That poses no problem for a list-article. Yes, list-articles do need to be maintained and updated. For all or almost all articles about historic churches or other historic sites, policy/practice is that we include currently listed and formerly listed places on the same list, although maybe indicating former status somehow differently. With the current title of article, it would be appropriate to include all current and former churches which are notable road churches (where notability might be defined at a lower level than their having a separate article about them). It is also possible that this list could/should be converted to being a list of historic Finnish churches, whether road churches or not, as has been suggested above. However outright deletion of the article would not advance Wikipedia and is not needed. I think that there is consensus of fact that many/most of these are individually notable churches, and removing the one existing list of them would not be helpful. --Doncram (talk) 09:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete It could not be more clear. This is not even an article. This is a directory. Not even sourced! Trillfendi (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trillfendi: It references Suomen tiekirkot 2012 ("Finnish Road Churches 2012") by fi:Kirkkopalvelut? /Julle (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Julle: You’ve gotta be kidding me. All they did was type that in the reference tag. They didn’t even try to source it correctly. Or any source for that matter. This page is a mess and not suitable for Wikipedia in this format. If anything it should’ve been a speedy deletion. Trillfendi (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source itself is a directory. A primary source. Not sufficient for notability. Ajf773 (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per definition, we know that this was not suitable for speedy deletion, as that is not the way to go for anything that would end up as an so far inconclusive AfD discussion. Also, given that writing encyclopedic articles is something that has something of a learning curve, I see no reason to not assume they did indeed do their best with the sourcing, given that the creation of it was the fourth edit from the user in question and how to indicate the source for an entire list in a footnote is far beyond what most newcomers figure out how to do. /Julle (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have yet to see anyone successfully explain how WP:NOTDIR can just be ignored for this particular list. Also, I have yet to see any evidence that even one of these churches would pass GNG. If that is the case, then we just have a directory of non-notable churches. Spiderone 19:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see another editor, in an attempt to assist the article, added links to two Finnish cathedrals. However I don't particularly believe that cathedrals fit into the category of road churches. Not even the articles themselves admit this distinction. Ajf773 (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That editor was actually me! I'm trying my best to find some notability in these churches. I'm also not convinced that cathedrals belong here and therefore I am still keeping my delete vote. Spiderone 21:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NOTDIR does not apply because it simply does not apply. These are notable churches, and they also happen to be "road churches". The list does not include phone numbers and church service hours, i.e. the kind of temporary ephemera that the NOTDIR guideline or essay or whatever it is was written to address. What specific quote from NOTDIR do you think applies? I will probably disagree. Also, see ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines (2nd nomination) for other current AFD discussion where some editors assert NOTDIR applies, and IMHO that view is properly and completely refuted by knowledgeable other editors.

I think that some editors are simply not agreeing that many of the individual churches are probably individually wikipedia-notable (while IMO the discussion has established that several/most/perhaps all are). And some editors are not agreeing that any list of churches in Finland is acceptable (I and others have offered this could be moved to simply "List of churches in Finland" and that there the "road church" designation could be noted as an attribute for some), but of course Wikipedia should allow a list of churches. Also if the list is kept restricted to "road churches" then it remains valid as a split out of the Road church article. Sorry, I see no way at all that this should be deleted. Maybe really what is going on is that some want the list-article to be improved right away, while wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. The topic has been established to be valid, IMO, so those who don't like the list should perhaps give it a negative tag or two, or post about its defects at its Talk page, but I don't see merit in continuing this AFD. It is ready to be closed (Keep), imho, based on facts, policies, etc. discussed so far. --Doncram (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 40 of the churches on the list have blue links to their own articles. It is clearly a valid list article. Dream Focus 18:19, 13 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. Sandstein 07:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Southcott (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, no notable coverage in any independant, reliable sources. Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any coverage which satisfies the necessary standards to suggest notability. Looks like a YAMB case from the link in the infobox. SITH (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's some significant coverage in reliable sources: [4], [5], [6]. --Michig (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Allmusic is not a reliable source, it's a user-generated website just as Wikipedia is. The first link is a mention is a local newspaper of a show in the events section - it's not uncommon for just about anything to make it in there. Jon Kolbert (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Allmusic is an accepted reliable source. It is not user-generated content. The other one is an almost full-page newspaper article, not a 'mention'.--Michig (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michig, has there been an RfC on that? I was under the impression, from browsing the website, that AllMusic is to the music world what IMDb is to the film world. Best, SITH (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies and Allmusic reviews are by Allmusic staff, some of whom are well known and long-established music writers. It's a myth that 'anyone can contribute' to Allmusic - it has user reviews, but these are clearly distinct from their staff reviews. --Michig (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's just a page-by-page basis then. If an article cites user reviews we'll just have to analyse the source itself. Thanks for clearing that up! SITH (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic has artists submit their products to get added to the database. "TiVo tries to add albums and artist bios -- as well as review and synopsize as many CDs, films, and DVDs -- as possible". Reviews and the existence of content on their website isn't as "hand-picked" by the editors as it may seem. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic contains a database of releases, personnel, etc., sidebars with genres etc. - none of these are considered reliable. Biographies and reviews written by Allmusic staff writers, however, are. Artists don't submit their own reviews and get them published as Allmusic reviews. --Michig (talk) 19:21, 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) 20:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article tells the story, the discography has just red links and none of the band members have articles either. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:20, 8 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. Has been withdrawn by nominator. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crooked Billet[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N in its own right per WP:UKPLACES. Not even mentioned in expansive recent works such as the London Plan which names some very borderline areas such as Nags Head in the heart of fairly tiny Holloway as London places but which have a market or something more notable. Not all sub-neighbourhoods and subsets of streets meet WP:N... - Adam37 Talk 19:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator see details below.[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this isn't kept or merged/redirected then it should be restored as a redirect to Battle of Crooked Billet. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misapprehend the relationship of this article, which is on the outskirts of London, England, and the Battle of Crooked Billet, which took place in Pennsylvania, U.S. Or maybe I've misunderstood your intent? Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was saying that if we don't keep the place in London or redirect it to a parent article, then the redirect should be restored to the US battle. However its looking like a keep anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current content is reasonable because this does have some currency as a district of London, e.g. May's paternal grandfather, Tom, and his five siblings were all born in the Crooked Billet area of Wimbledon. The title is a common name for a pub and there are plenty more besides the one in Wimbledon. The page and title therefore have some potential utility for disambiguation and we should retain the full edit history to record aspects such as the previous redirect to the battle. Andrew D. (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ No compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:UKPLACES, cited by the nominator, is a guideline on naming conventions for places in the UK. It has nothing to do with assessing their notability. The applicable guideline here is WP:GEOLAND, which the article clearly passes. SITH (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely satisfies WP:GNG, WP:GEOLAND as a geographical place.--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 02:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added lots of content and sources. As I said, WP:Before clearly violated. Matthews, Tony (2009). "Crooked Billet". London Gardens On Line. London Parks and Gardens Trust. Retrieved 7 January 2019. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article now includes two independent WP:RS citations specifically about the place: titles, "Crooked Billet" and "Crooked Billet, Merton". That alone is enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search shows great reviews of it at The Resident [7] and Vogue magazine [8], as well as two recommendations in Evening Standard [9] [10] among other mentions in publications. Dream Focus 16:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but keep UK cities/towns policy under review; for areas with fewer than 200 self-identifying residents one has to maintain a sense of an article Section (sometimes) of the usually given parent place as being perfectly suitable.- Adam37 Talk 14:22, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex P Michaels[edit]

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

promotional CV, and that's enough for deletion despite the very weak claims to notability DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails all criteria of WP:CREATIVE (the Emmy award would make him notable if it was a national one but it is only a regional one). Has the hallmarks of a COI submission (referring to the guy by his first name, extensive list of what he's done without references, etc). SITH (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, deprodded this on the basis that he had won an Emmy so some of his works should be notable but, on checking, none of his written works or directed films have articles and his acting is mainly minor roles or short films so WP:CREATIVE and WP:NACTOR are not passed at this time, though he may be notable in the future, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CREATIVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:01, 13 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 Raven Cycle#TV adaptation. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Raven Cycle (U.S. TV series)[edit]

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

This show has been being talked about since at least April 2017. Still no indication it is in anything other than the development stage. Would have made sense to redirect (either to Syfy, where the discussion of development is taking place, or to the books on which it is based). But the article's creator is insisting it being in mainspace. Fails WP:TVSERIES, most likely WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to book series article's section on the TV adaptation. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Raven Cycle. Seems to be still in development, not certain if the full series will be made, therefore WP:TOOSOON. Hzh (talk) 01:59, 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. Sandstein 11:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FilesAnywhere[edit]

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

No claim to notability, only sources are a single PC Magazine review from 2004 and a few mentions in some reference books. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 08:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did find some mention in Forbes, but nothing focused on the company itself. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Schawbel, November 20, 2011, How to Win at the Sport of Business by Mark Cuban, Forbes

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:NSOFT. Promotionalism only. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 9 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) 18:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Goldgenie[edit]

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

Insufficient notability to satisfy the revised requirements of WP:NCORP. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 12:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 12:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 12:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the criteria for notability, fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:58, 10 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. Sandstein 11:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bug Genie[edit]

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

The subject of this article has no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I can only guess that the reason it has been kept in previous discussions has been the extreme systemic bias towards software, especially open-source software, on Wikipedia, because if it was about any other topic and had the same lack of independent reliable sources it would have been deleted in pretty short order. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as no !votes yet. Perhaps because it's the fifth AfD for this article. If it's deleted, I advocate salting it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not have substantive third party sources to establish notability, reads like a promotional page. Reywas92^Talk 22:07, 8 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. Sandstein 11:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe Rozsa[edit]

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

Relatively minor public servant and attorney. The refs are either PR, notices, or not independent DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rozsa is one of the leading Lobbyists on Capitol Hill, working as a Managing Director for one of the largest lobbying firms in the U.S. and just recently considered a "Top Lobbyist 2018" by The Hill. In my opinion that's something :) But I might be wrong, since he's definitely a (minor) public servant as DGG said. He's also correct in stating that he's an attorney - and he also is a (Hungarian) community leader. Maybe better sources needed? --Ruhri Jörg (talk) 08:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable by WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, or any other measure; accomplishments are unextraordinary in the D.C. universe (by which I mean the District of Columbia, not the comic-book publisher). - Julietdeltalima (talk) 04:17, 9 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 a subject lacks the coverage needed to show notability, then the reason for that lack of coverage is immaterial. RL0919 (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Patcher[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An undisclosed paid article on a mobile app that fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Can't find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Plenty of mentions, but no in-depth coverage as required by WP:CORPDEPTH. Ping @MER-C, 404House, Galobtter, Ifnord, and SchmuckyTheCat: as participants of prev AfD(s). GSS (talk|c|em) 17:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per what I said last time "Sources are not reliable or don't meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Product reviews, as they are narrowly focused or not published outside of purely local or narrow (highly specialized) interest publications. Fails to meet WP:N."

Justifying that, the sources in the article are:

Their own website
Medium (unreliable due to being a blog)
GadgetHacks Assuming the site is reliable, not indepth, a short how to that fails Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product or function without broader context per WP:PRODUCTREV
Droid Panic Looks to be a blog, and similarily fails being in-depth.
Hack Read again, similarily fails being indepth. A one paragraph how to.
Malavida no indication from the site that it has an editorial staff or is reliable in any way.

There's a shedload of similar blogy "how-to" coverage and PR coverage, but no independant in-depth (and reliable) coverage that allows us to write a reasonable neutral article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Article also fails notability guidelines at WP:PRODUCT. This is the second go-around in a short time, the third if you count the procedural close. I advocate salting to prevent recreation. Ifnord (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

srz, you want to salt something because it was speedy deleted once? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's not what I wrote. Ifnord (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is what you wrote..Mosaicberry (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has "added some references" which consist of..some youtube videos and a wiki. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no significant recognition from news or other 'reliable' sites because it's illegal and they can get in serious trouble for promoting it, something you editors don't seem to understand...

And WHAT EVIDENCE do you have that it is paid?? I'm waiting for an answer lol. If you would take a few minutes you can find out it is extremely popular, just with almost no 'official' recognition. Mosaicberry (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One good reason to keep the page is that when you search for Lucky Patcher, you won't be able to tell what is the correct site, making the Wikipedia sidebar or result very helpful to find out more about it. Mosaicberry (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC) — Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This page is very well referenced compared to Kingo Root, which is also highly suspected of being malware. I think that page should be considered for deletion first being similar. Mosaicberry (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with the above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.58.17.51 (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC) — 190.58.17.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Yes lots of concerns. The attempt to use user generated refs is not appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Doesn't matter what the reason is that the sources don't exist; if there are no sources there is no notability. --bonadea contributions talk 21:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted in the last AfD, the sources exist at the bare minimum.

The standard for notability is not whether the sources used are in-depth coverage, but whether the sources exist to show notability and future use bringing the article up to standards. As it sits on :en the article is poor - but the sources exist to make it better. Search Google's news, books, scholar, etc and there are many good cites, many which aren't in English. Several book sources on Google show significant coverage but don't have a live preview. Particularly would be Android developer books that have sections on using Lucky Patcher as a test against your own code. WP:DEADLINE, eventually, blah blah blah.

[11]

[12]

[13]

The software isn't illegal itself, but it does allow things that would be considered illegal.
The article has at least two dozen editors, unless GSS wants to identify one as being a paid contributor and the other two dozen as flunkeys, stop making this claim because it is insulting to the good faith contributions of everyone involved.

SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Out of all two dozen editors, 12 are single purpose registered accounts +23 IPs who made no or a couple of edits outside this topic and rest of the users made some maintenance edits excluding you. There is no doubt that user Godisthebestone was paid to create this article and was blocked for abusing multiple accounts so, I don't see anything "insulting" here. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for identifying who the paid editor was. I've re-written or removed any text they added to the page. This is the first time you've identified that user despite being asked multiple times. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James and some others claimed I have been paid to write some of the page, I have no clue why they think this, also don't you think if ChelpuS or someone else from Lucky Patcher wanted a page for it they would pay an admin or at least someone who had many edits, rather than someone like us who have very few edits? Mosaicberry (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By "someone like us" who do you mean by "us"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean some of the other editors like me who have few edits outside of Lucky Patcher. Mosaicberry (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One book ([14]) appears to be self-published and I can't see any evidence that they other two book hits are reliable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just from Google Scholar I have found several more books that appear to be decently reliable. Mosaicberry (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like nothing more than a passing mention. Could you select one or two of these titles with rather more in-depth coverage? Pavlor (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As stated previously, there is no significant coverage because it is illegal and sites can get into trouble for anything to do with it. Mosaicberry (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. FitIndia ^Talk 05:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As stated previously, there is no significant coverage because it is illegal and sites can get into trouble for anything to do with it. Mosaicberry (talk) 18:05, 12 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There aren't significant coverage on this article. --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As stated previously, there is no significant coverage because it is illegal and sites can get into trouble for anything to do with it. Mosaicberry (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mosaicberry: Please see Bonadea's comment above that reads Doesn't matter what the reason is that the sources don't exist; if there are no sources there is no notability. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 04:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According To Google, the definition of notability is “the fact or quality of being notable.”, and the definition of notable is “worthy of attention or notice; remarkable.” As stated before the program Lucky Patcher is very popular and worthy of attention as one can see if one takes a few seconds to check, so either you or Google have something wrong. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.213.186.249 (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Wikipedia refers to WP:N. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aware of that, just stating maybe you should change it to something like ‘Reliability’ since the definition is wrong :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.213.186.249 (talk) 15:44, 13 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) 18:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Cey[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Never achieved anything past mid-tier junior hockey. Fails GNG, NHOCKEY, as per nom. Unbelievable that we're still cleaning up after Dolovis' mess. Reso lute 17:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Undistinguished, ephemeral career where the highlight was that the subject played three games in the upper minor leagues. Eeeesh. Ravenswing 19:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:NHOCKEY. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 00:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - SJHL MVP is not enough to pass NHOCKEY. I found this article but it is not enough to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not close to meeting either WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Sandals1 (talk) 18:45, 8 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 Capital Sound. Sandstein 11:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Iovannone[edit]

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

It appears that Iovannone was a member of a group, Capital Sound, which won a Juno Award. However, he himself does not pass WP:MUSICBIO because of this, only Capital Sound, which is currently not an article. I suggest deleting this article and redirecting it to Capital Sound (I'd be happy to create it). SITH (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beat you to it, Strauss! Ifnord (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curses! Well done

SITH (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Capital Sound, which does meet WP:NBAND unlike the subject which appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. Ifnord (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Capital Sound. Musicians notable primarily as members of bands are not automatically entitled to have standalone BLPs as individuals, unless they can make strong claims to independently passing WP:NMUSIC — but he doesn't have that, and the article is relying entirely on primary sources (his own website, Facebook, the buy-it pages of his own works on online stores, etc.) rather than notability-supporting reliable source media coverage. Thanks to Ifnord for getting Capital Sound's article started — it does still need some additional referencing and expansion, but it's got their base notability covered off and the improvement for a band whose notability claim is 20 years old will have to come from archival digging rather than Google. But now that it's in place, this can indeed be redirected there. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above and merge a couple of sentences about his solo recordings, so do not delete before redirecting, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:45, 8 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. Sandstein 11:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Low Lights[edit]

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

MySpace is the only sustained coverage of the band. Once played on BBC and having NME mention you once doesn't meet WP:BAND. SITH (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Frozen in time for twelve years; clearly unlikely to gain any further or renewed relevance. Not notable by Wikipedia standards (is there a Landfill No-Hopers Before The Crash Wiki?). RobinCarmody (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have to agree with RobinCarmody. I also did a relatively thorough google search for the following phrases without uncovering a single useful source: 66.198.222.67 (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the low lights" cardiff

"the low lights" nat smithies

"low lights" nat smithies band

- Comment. Proves the point; I must admit I didn't do that, but good to see that someone did. Obviously this band's existence is well into the internet era so it is not as if they will have a lot of material only available offline. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:43, 6 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. Sandstein 11:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patsy O'Brien[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

AFD'd in 2006 and kept on the rationale that he was mentioned once by Paul Dromey. I don't think that satisfies WP:MUSICBIO. SITH (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Spleodrach (talk) 16:57, 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) 16:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching for his name, there is coverage, but it fails to focus in large part on him. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 19:09, 6 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) 18:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Reinholds[edit]

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

There's only one independent source about him but it is offline. It does not seem to pass WP:MUSICBIO. The article about him was deleted from Wikipedia in Portuguese per lack of notability. Bilhauano (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bilhauano (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bilhauano (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My searching supports nom's analysis. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched, and I can't source it either.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No useful sources provided or found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:22, 13 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 List of SPI games. Randykitty (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ragnarok (board game)[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. There is an offline review that is used as a reference, but it's only a capsule reviews and article needs multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to List of SPI games. BOZ (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If more sources can't be found, I'm fine with a merge. I didn't notice that the list exited. SL93 (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 01:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I ran a BEFORE (newspapers.com, JSTOR, Google News, Google Books) which was difficult due to how common Ragnorak is as a name but, insofar as I can tell, there are no RS about this. In the absence of any other sources, we only have a single source in the article and it, therefore, fails GNG. I can't see that it passes WP:NPRODUCT either. I would also be fine with a Redirect to List of SPI games, but not a Merge as the content is not appropriately transferable for a list. Simulations Publications, Inc. is, as an article, itself probably a good candidate for deletion so it shouldn't be merged/redirected there. Chetsford (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- SPI isn't going to get deleted, plenty of sources. And I did find a fair number of reliable sources on this game, including two books that appear to cover the topic in some depth. But they aren't independent. Hobit (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Sorry but the article does not satisfy GNG Alex-h (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to SPI. Hobit (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, should be to List of SPI games. Hobit (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although there seems to be consensus that this article should not be kept, there is disagreement about a possible merge and to which exact target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 6 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) 18:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nyland (Sussex cricketer)[edit]

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

Biography which fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE or WP:NCRIC. The article doesn't even make clear whether he is one of two people with a similar name or someone else entirely - which calls into question whether we actually know anything at all about the chap. We certainly don't have enough, with only a surname, to write a biography and the matches he played were not first-class as claimed by the article.

Had previously been PRODed but that didn't show up when I placed a PROD at the end of last month. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V. The article makes clear we don't know who this is.--Pontificalibus 16:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and similar AfDs along this line. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with possible merge of information into the two articles mentioned as possibilities for identity. But essentially, fails to meet any inclusion criteria. Harrias ^talk 21:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom StickyWicket (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.BabbaQ (talk) 23:52, 9 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) 18:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Niranjan Antony[edit]

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

Appears to be a self-promotional page, subject fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search for "Niranjan Antony" reveals nothing useful for WP:GNG. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see anything useful or significant after searching this name. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 10:07, 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. Tone 08:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mainak Misra[edit]

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

Vanity spam/written by subjects wife (see username) with absolutely no reliable sources to support any of the claims nor can I find anything in a WP:BEFORE. Fails GNG and all the other Ns. Praxidicae (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He does have an entry into the Salto Independent FF, but nothing beyond that to help in English. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and per nominator. AD ^Talk 19:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All the information about Mainak Misra is verifiable. Please find the imdb, filmfreeway links as well as film festival links under 'Reference' section. All the film festival laurels are attached on the 'Days of Marigolds' poster which you can find on the 3rd link (imdb) under reference section. Please inform if you need any more information about Mainak Misra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manishachatterjee96 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above; IMDB is not enough to prove notability in any case Spiderone 10:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manishachatterjee96 (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC) added a link under 'References' section (reference number-1) about an esteemed 'Spotlight' report about Mainak Misra on Deccan Chronicle which is the most popular newspaper in South India.[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect can be created after she's mentioned at the redirect target. Sandstein 07:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Penn[edit]

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

lacking notability Hughesdarren (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~You were expecting a delete vote but actually it was me, Dio!~~ Comment. I previously nominated this for PROD on the premise that it does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. It was dePRODed by an editor who claimed to have found many more sources by searching for "Jo-Jo Penn"–following this advice, I found these two articles [15] [16] in The Australian, one of which tantalizingly described an epic showdown between Penn and May in the Google preview. Unfortunately I don't have a subscription to The Australian and can't access the articles to confirm that there is significant coverage there between the two of them. All in all, I have yet to actually see the kind of coverage necessary to meet GNG (and even if the Australian pieces are relevant, that means we have a running total of one RS giving significant coverage, which is technically not enough on its own), but there's a chance that there's some better coverage behind paywalls. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. She has gotten some recent press, and I suspect she will be clearly notable shortly (IBC listing. Until more press arises to make the case less on-the-fence, however, I think redirect to Second May ministry or Premiership of Theresa May would be sensible. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Second May ministry for now, with no prejudice against recreating if she becomes more notable in the future. Can't find enough in-depth coverage at present to show they pass WP:GNG, and they don't qualify for WP:NPOL.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She's not mentioned in Second May ministry. (not watching, please {{ping}} as needed) czar 17:31, 13 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. Sandstein 07:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aieshalaine Gannaban[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Definitely fails WP:GNG. This player almost has no coverage at all, just passing mentions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete No significant independent coverage of her and nothing to show WP:NSPORTS is close to being met.Sandals1 (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 9 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 War crimes in the Kosovo War#Organ theft. Relevant content can be merged from history as editorial consensus may determine. Sandstein 07:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Organ theft in Kosovo[edit]

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

Do we need this?

From the article's lede:

«The United Nations (UN) war crimes prosecutors investigated the case in 2002 and 2003, and again in 2004, but concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove that the organ harvesting ring existed.[6]» and «Since the issuance of the report, however, senior sources in the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) and many members of the European Parliament have expressed serious doubts regarding the report and its foundations, believing Marty failed to provide "any evidence" concerning the allegations.[8]»

So it seems like this is a largerly unfounded conspiarcy theory, largerly disseminated by russian and serbian media, yet the article (outside of the lede) presents it in a completely uncritical way. The article should be either completely rewritten or removed alltogether (possibly merging the neutral bits that critically access the conspiracy theory with the War crimes in the Kosovo War article) Openlydialectic (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't whether the allegations are true, but rather is the subject notable, which it doesn't seem that you are disputing if I'm reading your comment correctly. If there is a POV issue with the current content, that is to be addressed through editing and discussion, not deletion, and merger with War crimes in the Kosovo War is also a topic for ordinary processes. See WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with War crimes in the Kosovo War. The focus of the article is strongly on instances perpetrated by Kosovo Liberation Army during the aforementioned conflict. Adding up the readable prose in both articles, a merge wouldn't put the resulting article over the recommended maximum article size, and there is some well-referenced stuff in this article, so a simple redirect would result in the loss of some valuable content. SITH (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, allegations or investigations on various colors of criminality, in this case organ trafficing, exist in every country. Let's start with US or other western countries where the demand is higher. I don't see any articles for other countries. The article is mainly based on B92 Serbian sources, trying to connect the KLA with organ trafficing, still 20 years after the war without proving anything. The rest are stating allegations, and no substance is being ellaborated. A good part of the references are regarding the MEDICUS case, which has nothing to do with the Kosovo War and is unrelated to the "organ trafficing" allegations.--Mondiad (talk) 00:35, 7 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) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 06:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Association of Software and Information Services[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The sources are their own website and a passing rent-a-quote in an otherwise unrelated article. A DDG search returns their website, the wiki page, trade listings, but no WP:SIGCOV. Cabayi (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did manage to find coverage in The Daily Star, which I've added to the page in the history section. It's just a start, so I'm on-the-fence on whether to keep the page. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep BASIS is a significant organization of IT and software companies in Bangladesh. More or less all such companies get affiliated with either BCS or BASIS and most often with both. Search with BASIS Bangladesh for more relevant search hit. This org is almost never referred to by its full name but as BASIS; which unfortunately makes it a bit harder to find proper search hits. --nafSadh ^{did say} 15:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google Books and Scholar searches linked above find plenty of reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Several independent sources cited. Rathfelder (talk) 09:51, 8 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. czar 17:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Atlantis[edit]

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

Not notable. WP:BEFORE only provided this. Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probable PROMO or Fancruft for an arcade game created in 2008 without sources and no one has added any sources or information in all these years. A Proquest News archive search produced only a single 2010 press release that included ""Battle of Atlantis," X360, Strategy" in a long list of "games released this week." This could have been WP:PROD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The 2008 Xbox 360 game mentioned above is Battle for Atlantis, and is evidently unrelated to the 1981 arcade Battle of Atlantis that is this article's subject. As to the topic itself, I don't currently have access to Bill Kurtz's The Encyclopedia of Arcade Video Games, which is probably the definitive reference work on the topic; it would be helpful to see how much coverage this game received there. Otherwise, it receives brief mention for its early influence in this article, although I'm uncertain whether there is sufficient coverage there to be considered "significant" (a separate discussion can be had about whether that's a RS; Gamasutra staff works are generally considered reliable, but I'm not aware of any binding determination on content provided by their "expert bloggers" – people who are explicitly not Gamasutra staff but who the staff have quasi-endorsed as they are typically "professional developers who post regularly, write informatively, and can draw on a wealth of real-world development experience"). In any case, I don't think that's enough to meet the inclusion bar unless Kurtz provided it with more coverage than I would expect. Ideally, this would be redirected/merged rather than deleted, but since neither Game World Manufacturing nor Comsoft have pages to target... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:55, 9 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. Sandstein 11:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All-In Removal[edit]

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

I do not believe this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The company provides a local manure removal and shavings delivery service in Florida and has a board of three directors. It is a small, local company. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing in the article indicates more than a run-of-the-mill company going about its business. Neither the HITS Ocala or Williston Pioneer sources or the various routine listings found from searches are sufficient for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is another speedy case. There is nothing out there that would be considered significant coverage. A few mentions and business listings. WP:CORPDEPTH is certainly not met.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as plainly non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 18:15, 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. Sandstein 11:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Echo, the Arrow and the Chain[edit]

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

No fi.wikipedia article, no English refs, Finnish refs appear to be basic listings and reviews of the performances from a decade ago. Not notable. Mccapra (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is not a vote. (Though of course "!votes" anyway aren't votes.) I like this article; it has me laughing. -- Hoary (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the whole thing is plot and doesn’t even attempt to show notability per WP:NME. SITH (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above comment and fails WP:GNG. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 07:06, 13 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. Sandstein 11:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom MacDonald (rapper)[edit]

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

Rapper does not meet GNG by any stretch of the imagination, let alone NMusic. Trillfendi (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO.AD ^Talk 05:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: per A7 (specifically {{db-band}}). SITH (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a good idea.Trillfendi (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note Someone placed a speedy tag on the article while the AFD was ongoing. I've removed it as I feel AFD is a better venue for this. Point 2 on the page defnining a credible claim of significance contains this language, "If the references within the article discuss the subject . . . then too the A7, A9 and A11 tags should not be applied." The article lists two references, which do discuss him in substantive ways. I do not think they meet the threshold for GNG or Musicbio, but they do discuss the subject and thus are enough to make AFD a more appropriate venue than A7. Also, just on general principle, once an AFD has been started imo it's generally better to let it run rather than tag for speedy (with exceptions for truly egregious hoaxes and BLP violations). ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. Trillfendi (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep/Comment - I fully understand why this article was nominated as it certainly fails the notability criteria for musicians at the moment. However Tom MacDonald has been making waves and causing a fair bit of coverage as he is one of the few rappers to openly express a conservative/right-wing position through his music. There are a fair bit of sources regarding this (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). These citations could certainly be better, and by and large I feel the slightest inclination that the subject might just pass WP:GNG, although the delete !votes certainly have their logic. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think those qualify of reliable sources per se; babe.net is really no more than a blog. If we grasp for straws his only “notability” is being chosen as Anthony Fantano’s Worst song of the Year but that’s only a matter of opinion (as he says in the video’s caption). MacDonald is simply a too soon. He has no career to speak of whatsoever. Not even one song of a discography given. This “article” is all of 2 sentences. Living in California isn’t a career.Trillfendi (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the creator of this article, I think I might as well weigh in. I don't have a strong opinion on whether it should be kept or deleted. My rationale for creating the article was that he was making waves and that people would naturally want to find information about him from Wikipedia, as evidenced by many people searching Google for his Wikipedia article. True, it is very much a stub article, but I figured in time, it would be filled in by people who work on music-related articles (of which I am not one) as his career (presumably) develops. Ergo Sum 20:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply a case of WP:TOOSOON. Trillfendi (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little if anything to indicate subject passes WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Could possibly be 'TOOSOON', but, if he is having the impact suggested ('making waves') there would probably be more WP:SIGCOV available. Eagleash (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here passes WP:NMUSIC, and nothing even tries — an IP separately added an unverified claim about his popularity on social media, but it got reverted within a few hours because in addition to being unsourced, "got X number of views on a piece of social media content" is not a notability claim in the first place. And the two references present here are WordPress blogs, not reliable or notability-supporting real media. Yes, this is possibly just WP:TOOSOON, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he actually has a credible notability claim and the correct kind of reliable source coverage to support it — but Wikipedia is not a public relations venue on which aspiring musicians are entitled to have articles for the publicity, so just because somebody is purportedly "making waves" in the blogosphere is not enough. We're an encyclopedia on which achieving something noteworthy comes first and then the Wikipedia article follows, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 7 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. Sandstein 11:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fivefold ministry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is blatant WP:SYN, virtually the entire thing is primary sourced to Bible passages and the few sources that are not the Bible are generally unreliable. Even if the topic is notable (not every evangelical trope is), this is a clear case for WP:TNT because this article violates WP:NOR and every version I have checked has the same problem. The best may be [17] but even this brave effort by JamesBWatson still leaves great swathes that are syntheses from the sources (not his fault, that is why he made the previous AfD nomination I guess). I went to stub it down to reliable stuff but the search results did not contain anything I would consider usable: lots of self-published evangelical proselytising and no actual substantive reliable sources, and the sources I do consider reliable, do not cover the topic beyond passing mentions that kind of assume you know what it is. "Fivefold ministry" quoted gets a couple of pages of Google hits, mainly sermons and mission pages. There are some mission training books and the like but none by notable authors and most seem to be published by niche charismatic presses often directly linked to the author's ministry. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Some mention in independent reliable sources ([18], [19], [20], [21]) but not quite the significant coverage needed to support an article of more than a few sentences per WP:WHYN. Could possibly be a merge to Charismatic Christianity or one of the articles linked to from there, but I'm not sure which one.--Pontificalibus 10:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is about a doctrine of a particular group of christians. Sources are from those people, and thus not independent, and are mostly not reliable sources, and there is very little coverage of it in independent sources. Some of the cited sources and external links actually don't even mention the "fivefold ministry" at all. Also, most of the content of the article is not even supported by the cited sources, and that has been true for all or virtually all of the article's history. The original version of the article consisted purely of a statement of one person's opinion on the matter, and although over the course of time the content has shifted and changed, it has continued in almost all its versions to be essentially attempting to present the personal views of a succession of editors, many of them single-purpose editors. From time to time editors have expressed concern about these problems, and various editors have attempted to clean the article up, but it has never fully cured the problems, and each time it has fairly soon returned to being no better than before. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:31, 8 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) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 07:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Frost (minister)[edit]

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

The two sources are a Morling College profile (affiliated, not independent) and a bare namecheck in Christianity Today. The article was created by CEGM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a name match for Frost's organisation. Much of the article's edit history is COI / SPA. Basically, it's an advert. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete~~ Negligible IRS that I can find. Aoziwe (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep in light of improved article referencing and below. Not fully convinced about general nature of IRS but yes, there is enough to satisfy GNG and AUTHOR. Aoziwe (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple books published by major publishers. We do not base deletion discussion on the article's state but on the subject's notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Searches for "Michael Frost (minister)" don't turn up much, but a search for "Michael Frost" christian turn up much more. I'll get around to inserting these into the body: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterl (talk • contribs) 20:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of books on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com.au/Keep-Christianity-Weird-Embracing-Discipline-ebook/dp/B07B7QYW7C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1546806839&sr=8-1 (NavPress)
https://www.amazon.com.au/Surprise-World-Habits-Highly-Missional-ebook/dp/B012P6LDWA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1546806839&sr=8-2 (NavPress)
https://www.amazon.com.au/Exiles-Living-Missionally-Post-Christian-Culture-ebook/dp/B009XE61TS/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1546806839&sr=8-3 (Baker Books)
https://www.amazon.com.au/Embracing-Theology-Adventure-Courage-Shapevine-ebook/dp/B004TS1MJW/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1546806839&sr=8-4 (Baker Books) Noting that User:Peterl forgot to sign this comment.

This is Wikipedia. We require reliable independent secondary sources that are actually about the subject. A list of books indicates that such sources might exist, but does not actually provide notability, especially for a spam article like this. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed. Did you see the links above the list of books?

As a side note, the assertion that the article is 'spam' is subjective and, given others' responses on this page, seems premature. peterl (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article was created by a likely SPA/COI editor in 2007, it has been edited by numerous others since. Notability needs to be more firmly established with more independent sources (work which E.M.Gregory has started) but multiple books cited in multiple other books would appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR. I've only done a very quick search, but his work is cited in an article in The Washington Post as an expert opinion here and by the Christian Post here. There is also some news coverage of his participation in a protest e.g. here. Melcous (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Among those "numerous others" are several SPAs and IPs with no other contributions, plus one account that claims to be the subject himself, and a lot of trivial wikignoming. Which non-conflicted editors have made substantive contributions? Guy (Help!) 23:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know; I have no way of knowing which editors are non-conflicted. Do you think the wording is biased or promotional due to COI editing? If so, lets work on changing it, but that doesn't seem to be a good reason for deletion if notability can be established. Melcous (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ping Guy, but he's obviously got this on his watchlist. Stop with trying to negate every comment and admit you didn't do WP:BEFORE correctly and move on. Whether the author himself, someone associated with the subject or paid by the subject or someone associated with him edited the article or not is not a reason to delete an article. The only reason to delete an article is if the subject is not notable, and this subject is clearly notable. CoI editing can easily be reverted, but Wikipedia should have articles about all notable subjects. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did do BEFORE. Other people have dramatically lower standards for sourcing, clearly (e.g. Eternity News, which gets and official "nope" from me), or a higher tolerance for spam. Guy (Help!) 16:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article was admittedly poorly sourced when nominated. Moreover "Michael Frost" is a lamentably common name, some keywords (Christian; Sydney) help - a little. I and others have now found and added what I see as sufficient sources to firmly establish notability. Kudos to Melcous for clearing out the PROMO and to User:Melcous and User:Walter Görlitz for doing a WP:HEYMANN expansion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum on sourcing, search terms. Searching "Alan Hirsch" + "Michael Frost" (they have co-authored a series of books,) brings up articles from Patheos and Christianity Today from which the articles on both Hirsch and Frost can be improved.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Trillfendi (talk) 22:18, 7 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. – Joe (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Riggs Road Line[edit]

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

Almost entirely original research with only a single source for a claim near the end (and it's primary at that) and it's additionally the result of an improperly attributed BOLD split off of List of Metrobus routes (Washington, D.C.), along with College Park-Bethesda MetroExtra Line. An attempt to incubate in draftspace resulted in an immediate revert by the creator with the remarked upon issues left unaddressed. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 08:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable route with no indication of meeting WP:N. Basically WP:FANCRUFT.Charles (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (COI notice: I was the one who tried to incubate this in draftspace) - despite having more sources added recently, 3 of the refs are to WMATA and the other is to metroventure.wordpress, neither of which qualifies as independent coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is there a notability guideline for bus routes? Articles on rail routes are usually accepted. Is that based on a guideline, based on an unwritten guideline, or based on an interpretation of general notability? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 7 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) AD ^Talk 11:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arsh Bajwa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Played on just one movie as supporting actor it's WP:TOOSOON to be on wikipedia. Forbes article which is provided on article is written by an contributor which seems like a press release. AD ^Talk 08:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AD ^Talk 08:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AD ^Talk 08:23, 6 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 G5. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nandan Pratim Sharma Bordoloi[edit]

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

Looks quite WP:TOOEARLY Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 6 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. – Joe (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

100-metres Bridge, Thailand[edit]

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

Not notable. Has not been covered by any reliable source, as far as I could determine. Only mention is from a forum post in a railway enthusiast website, and the poster actually said he made up the name himself.[22] Paul_012 (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; the one source given is a WP:SPS (and not even in English), and I also could not find any other reference to the subject. ComplexRational (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 7 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. – Joe (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AEGIS (Ragnarok Online)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable and was somehow kept twelve years ago despite an almost unanimous merge consensus. There's not much to merge into Ragnarok Online, and I'd be content with deletion, merging some info, or a straight redirect. Anarchyte (talk | work) 07:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk | work) 07:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk | work) 07:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no sourced information to be merged. Straight delete. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are two sources that show up in the WP:VGSE [23] and [24]. Please take a look to see if there are others. --Izno (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Faulire of WP:GNG. Pretty crazy it’s existed for so long. Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did anyone even take a look at the first AfD?? It actually closed as Keep despite the fact there was no consensus for that at all? Since there is nothing to merge here as it is all unsourced, and it fails WP:GNG... And to Izno, the sources posted are not WP:SIGCOV but passing mentions of few lines which is not enough to establish notability. Still not enough for merging this WP:OR to the main article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - AFD was a very different place back in 2006, and the 2000s in general. The standards were far lower back then, and you were far more likely to come across terrible discussions like that, where there’s very few allusions to policies and guidelines. That’s just how it was back then. But as you’ll likely see here, that doesn’t mean they stand up to modern day re-evaluations either. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]

More admins then, and even some admins now, saw AFD as binary "keep" or "delete". It can be annoying now, but it was commonplace then. --Izno (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I came back to take a second look as I was on mobile earlier. I've added the two sources to the article though. --Izno (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 04:18, 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. Randykitty (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shiodome River[edit]

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

Unclear notability Noahhoward (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Questionable notability, maybe just merge into existing article Shiodome Noahhoward (talk) 03:43, 30 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 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unclear deletion nomination. No indication of any effort spent on wp:BEFORE. No indication of any expertise (Japanese language skill would probably be very helpful) to perform wp:BEFORE, either. AFD is not for cleanup. It is or was a natural feature, so probably is notable per wp:NGEO and sources not looked for, not found, not understood. --Doncram (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See jawiki article for some history [25]. Simple Google Books search finds references that substantiate notability claim under WP:NGEO. Article can and should be expanded. Additionally, nominator's most recent comment above calls for a merge, which doesn't need to handled at AfD anyway, and redirecting/merging to Shiodome is not obvious, given the history of the river (could also legitimately point to Ginza, Shinbashi, Tokyo Expressway, Hamarikyu Gardens, etc etc). A strange nomination. Bakazaka (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge Notable or not, the present "article" is a content fork of the one sentence in Shiodome mentioning the river. Better wait to create a separate article when someone actually wants to create a separate article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 06:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable and meets WP:GEO AD ^Talk 07:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough sources to pass WP:NGEO. I empathise with Hijiri's point, as the article hasn't progressed a lot since what seems to be a content fork, but nevertheless it has progressed. The translation tag links to a better sourced article on jp-wiki with more content, which highlights the potential of this topic too. I've added the article to a more specific, and less populated translation category, so it's no longer lost in the backlog. Cesdeva ^(talk) 12:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely pass WP:GEOPURP, WP:GEOLAND, because it is a permanent natural feature.--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 02:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it's not "permanent", since it's gone.

Delete. What river? It's gone, and when it existed it was a glorified creek.
Enough sources to pass WP:NGEO. What sources? I count two blog links by amateur historians and a dead city government page that, from the title, is about the park mentioned in the article. --Calton | Talk 03:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google is your friend. Cesdeva ^(talk) 12:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Our standards for inclusion for named natural features are intentionally generous, because a gazetteer is one of the things Wikipedia actually is. And make no mistake, there are sources here. I'm hamstrung by my lack of Japanese, but relatively short mentions in English works are indicative of better native-language coverage. Coverage includes: historical importance of the river and its bridge crossing – and note that this bridge existed since 1604 and is itself the subject of quite a bit of discussion in the literature, public reaction to the plans to fill in the river (sadly, my access to Look Japan is limited), and the current status of the former watercourse. I will note that this article in the Japanese Journal of Ornithology appears to refer to a different river of the same name (on Hokkaido, rather than near Tokyo). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:15, 9 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. Randykitty (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Wrestling Alliance[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

None of the sources in the article look reliable or significant coverage in any way. I have done searches and not found anything that I can see is enough to satisfy the WP:GNG MPJ-DK (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.TH1980 (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep the full article. Among the article's References, the St. Petersburg Times and Wrestling Observer were regular sources of significant coverage. These are 2 reliable and significant coverage sources that have survived--there used to be more coverage available through searches that are no longer online, including TV listings articles. It's better to preserve remaining coverage that still exists, instead of deleting all history of a TV wrestling show altogether. People from different cities on YouTube have shared memories of the UWA, including the UWA airing on KTXH in Houston. Wikipedia has helped to preserve memory and history, and hopefully, more people will add sources to this article, so keep what memories still exist and build from there (not completely delete it from history and memory). For topics similar to this, slowly but surely, people have come up with archives of various sources from reliable collections. Matching facts in the article--Urban Wrestling Alliance TV episodes on YouTube show the UPN logo at the bottom right side of the screen, and some show the UPN TV Channel in different cities right next to the UPN logo, like UPN TV 20 Houston and UPN TV 69 Atlanta Shoehat3

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 06:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any reliable sources. AD ^Talk 07:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
New Comment A whole article on the subject of the Urban Wrestling Alliance was published in a 2001 issue of WOW (World Of Wrestling) Magazine, that included photos, the story of Rocky Johnson's UWA involvement and his Urban Wrestling Academy in Florida. One of the wrestlers interviewed in this WOW Magazine article was Sonny Siaki (whose Wiki bio includes the Urban Wrestling Alliance). WOW (World Of Wrestling) Magazine was a reliable source, with Bill Apter as its Editor-In-Chief.Shoehat3 (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You already voted "Keep" once above. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I just changed it from a vote to a "New Comment", to "generate a more thorough discussion", to back up "reliable sources" that have been published.Shoehat3 (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An article was published in The Detroit News, dated Saturday, November 11, 2000, titled "Two TV Shows try new angles, with mixed results" by Darrin Hill (sports section). This article is all about "Women of Wrestling" and "Urban Wrestling Alliance", and says the "Urban Wrestling Alliance" (UWA) "airs in Detroit on UPN-50/WKDB at 11 p.m. Sundays". Respectfully, just pointing out a "reliable source", to "generate a more thorough discussion".Shoehat3 (talk)

Delete. Non-notable organization. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was a Multichannel News article about the Urban Wrestling Alliance, titled "BET Ponders Wrestling TV Deal" by R. Thomas Umstead, dated August 21, 2001, that talked about Rocky Johnson's UWA involvement and a quote from BET's Michael Lewellen. With the dying away of print media sources especially, and with the possibility of some people thinking a subject's not notable just because they're not familiar with it, this is where some history dies away, and I'm just pointing out another "reliable source", that the UWA has been a main topic in itself, as a weekly TV organization (especially since there is visual evidence of UWA TV shows on UPN on YouTube, I can't believe that I'm the only one who remembers it). Shoehat3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:34, 13 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. As the article on the musician has been deleted, this could also have been speedied as A9. Randykitty (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beneath an Autumn Moon[edit]

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

Completely non-notable music album by one Brian Kachejian. The only source is a clipping from a local newspaper, hosted on Brian Kachejian's website. Calton | Talk 06:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I can see no notability for the performer much less this. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article on Brian Kachejian. Vorbee (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with Merge merge with Brian Kachejian.--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 13:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might to click on the link in the nomination statement. --Calton | Talk 13:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as self-promotional article on self-published album. As a self-promotional article created by the artist (and previously linked to the artist's own commercial site), it violates policy (WP:NOTPROMO). As a self-published album lacking significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, awards, chart position, use in TV show, etc etc, it fails the applicable notability guidelines (WP:GNG, WP:NALBUM). It does not look like the artist's own page will survive AfD, but even so the album is already discussed on the artist's page, and what's left to merge would be a track list that would be inappropriate on an artist page, so merge is not a good approach here anyway. No idea what "keep with merge" means above. Bakazaka (talk) 01:30, 7 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. Randykitty (talk) 06:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Susanne Mueller Zantop[edit]

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

promotional article for a corporate executive. Written in the usual PR model, with a little personal material added at the end. There is no indication that her company is notable, and therefore her activities, which seem mainly devoted to their internal R&D, are not likely to be notable either. Writing columns for a magazine, and a blog , which she does as well, are purely routine activities.

The refs are mainly to her own publications, and to promotional articles in various media. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my German but delete this scheiß. Trillfendi (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons already listed. Jelleecat (talk) 04:44, 10 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. Randykitty (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Hex Girls (fictional band)[edit]

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

A minor element of a few episodes of "Scooby-Doo". Paragraph after paragraph of in-universe detail, sourced only to a two-paragraph EW review of a direct-to-video cartoon movie. Calton | Talk 06:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article creator's also had the following references at the bottom of the article:

"Scooby-Doo! and the Witch's Ghost". Amazon.com. Retrieved July 17, 2011. "Scooby-Doo and the Witch's Ghost (1999)". Allmovie. Retrieved October 24, 2015. Herman, Gail; Copp, Rick; Goodman, David (9 June 1999). "Scooby-Doo and the Witch's Ghost". Scholastic – via Google Books.i

Yes, that's the exact formatting. --Calton | Talk 10:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no reason to keep this article if they are an incredibly minor fictional band. From what I can tell, they appear very few times in the Scooby Doo saga. Furthermore, they are already covered in detail at List of minor Scooby-Doo characters#The Hex Girls, and after reading WP:NOPAGE again I think there is no need for a standalone article about this subject. Note: The List of minor Scooby-Doo characters article's deletion is also being discussed at WP:Articles for deletion/List of minor Scooby-Doo characters and as of this time the unanimous opinion is delete. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, fancruft, also see the ANI thread linked from WP:Articles for deletion/List of minor Scooby-Doo characters for other context. SemiHypercube 22:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm pretty certain this has been deleted before, possibly under a different name. This time it is just as non-notable and comp,letely inadequately referenced. These are not major characters in the TV series. At most, they should get a one or two sentence mention in another article, and probably not even that. Also Earwig's Copyvio Detector suggests that a lot of this article is copied from http://hero.wikia.com/wiki/Hex_Girls. It is probably not actually copyvio but we still don't want a paste from a fan wiki article. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I was right. The Hex Girls was previously deleted at AfD in 2011 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hex Girls). It was then userfied and eventually came back as a redirect to List of Scooby-Doo characters#The Hex Girls where, guess what, we find pretty much exactly the same content as in this article, presumably pasted from the same source. I have cut that down quite a bit now but it is still more coverage than the subject merits. This also counts as a strong additional argument for deletion here, namely that we already have way more than sufficient coverage of this subject in another article and do not need to duplicate it here. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is about a very trivial subject and as per above it appears to be all copied from an external source anyways. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 15:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 19:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above comments. They may be one of my favorite parts from Scooby-Doo, but they do not meet the notability requirements for a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 03:27, 13 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. Procedural close, missed an article during search. (non-admin closure) Nohomersryan (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Curbelo (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unused DAB page per WP:TWODABS. "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article." Nohomersryan (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, would Capitán de Corbeta Carlos A. Curbelo International Airport work on here, or is it a PTM, that way we can keep the page if it isn't. Nohomersryan (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:59, 6 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. Randykitty (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gleici Damasceno[edit]

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

tabloid content. It's time we realized that primary claims of this sort "digital influencer" when in the lede mixed with trivia like "being a student of psychology " (she's a undergraduate) and "human rights activist" (she campaigned for a political party) amounts to tabloid coverage of someone only a tabloid would cover. To the extent that we're an encyclopedia , we should remove this. To the extent we include, we're an adjunct to a tabloid that pretends to be called an encyclopedia. Until we develop rules that someone has to have actually done something, we can accommodate this to the GNG by declaring that any source covering this nonsense is to that extent unreliable. . DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Trillfendi (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable indivudal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 9 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. My sympathy lies with those who want to delete this kind of listcruft, but there is a clear consensus to keep this. Randykitty (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of events held at Rogers Place[edit]

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

NOT DIRECTORY DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Trillfendi (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most major venues have similar articles [26]. One was nominated for deletion and the decision was to keep [27]. Nothing on WP:NOTDIR refers to venues. Thankyoubaby (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with Merge Keep the article or Merge to Rogers Place--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 13:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The tour articles contain lists of dates and venues, so there's no reason why venue articles shouldn't contain lists of tours and dates. Whether such lists should be in the venue article or split out due to length is an editorial one. All the events contain notable performers and should be considered major events. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is primarily concerned with directory lists as resources for conducting business, for example listing upcoming events, so I don't see it as particularly relevant here.--Pontificalibus 13:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep, pending a wider discussion on whether such lists are useful or not. I agree with the nominator that it's largely a NOTDIRECTORY violation, but Category:Lists of events by venue has lists for many other venues besides Rogers Place, and there may still be others lurking somewhere that just haven't been added there yet — and there's no valid reason to single Rogers Place's list out as uniquely unencyclopedic. Is this a thing we should be doing on here at all, perhaps not — but that would require a consensus to kill all of the existing "events by venue" lists off, not just this one in isolation. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These three AfD's last year were for similar articles - based on a list of events that were held at specific venues: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of entertainment events at FedExForum Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of entertainment events at the BMO Harris Bradley Center and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of entertainment events at Bankers Life Fieldhouse. Ajf773 (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is, those articles were largely unsourced or had all the info taken from the venue's websites. This article is independently sourced like the surviving AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of events at T-Mobile Arena. Thankyoubaby (talk) 04:48, 9 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. Randykitty (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bryon Noem[edit]

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

I think our usual precedent is that spouses of US State governors are not necessarily notable. However, his spouse was also a member of the US House from her state, and we seem to have at category Category:Spouses of members of the United States House of Representatives. I checked 15 at random, and at 12 of the 15 of them were unquestionably notable in their own right DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My views on “being married to someone is not notability” are clear around here but even beyond that, clearly there is nothing there worth an article at this time. Trillfendi (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete well we do not have an article on Jason Love (well, the one who is the husband of Mia Love) or many, many other spouses of members of congress. Even in the case of Sarah Palin's husband, he was not clearly notable even after she became a candidate for Vice President, clearly not just when she was governor of Alaska. I have even come to question weather Lenore Romney is notable. Her husband was governor, cabinet member and potential contender for the presidency, she was a candidate for Senate whose defeat was in some ways a proxy rejection of the policies of her husband as Secretary of HUD, she was for a time a bit part actress, and she is the mother of a current senator, former governor who also was a major party nominee for US president. Her and George Romney's relationship gets major play in 3 biographies written of him. That is the level of coverage that almost certainly shows notability. If Mrs. Noem gets whole biographies written on her that speak deeply on her relationship with her husband, or becomes a contentder for national office, or if Bryon Noem runs for senate on his own and has a decent chance of winning, I can see him becoming notable, but not yet with one article covering his wife's igaguration. The Deseret News ran a whole article about Jason Love, and that I do not consider enough to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Category:Spouses of United States state governors, we have lots of such articles, although we have tehm on only a tiny fraction of governor's spouses. WP:INHERIT: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." There has to be WP:SIGCOV, some of the older articles in these categories are about old-fashioned wives who got a lot of SIGCOV by hosting garden parties, promoting hubby's policies at women's clubs and so forth.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think there is notability being the first, first gentlemen in the state's history. Otherwise Delete.Koncurrentkat (talk) 17:25, 6 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. Randykitty (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Elaban[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability yet. Available sources are WP:ROUTINE. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing has changed since last AfD - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 18:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not close to meeting WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER, which is what pro wrestlers fall under. Only at the development level.Sandals1 (talk) 18:53, 8 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. Michig (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Farmers and Fishermen: Two Centuries of Work in Essex County, Massachusetts, 1630-1850[edit]

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

Since the only apparent media reference is to the fact that something is not in this book, I do not see thebasis of notability DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep given those sources. I didn't look on JSTOR but should've. Delete – Absolutely nothing to be found in my searches save two passing mentions with no relevance whatsoever to practically anything. The author doesn't have an article, furthering the case for deletion and eliminating the redirect and merge options. References on the article lead nowhere save one of the passing mentions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "Absolutely nothing to be found in my searches", well i found some reviews (see below), and "The author doesn't have an article, furthering the case for deletion...", no it doesn't, wikipedia does not have to have an author article for one or more of their works to be notable enough for a standalone article. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK with multiple reviews including, in William and Mary Quarterly - here, The New England Quarterly - here, The American Historical Review - here, The Journal of American History - here, The Journal of Economic History - here, Australasian Journal of American Studies - here, Technology and Culture - here, Reviews in American History - here, The Economic History Review - listed here, Journal of the Early Republic - listed here, also, it won the 1995 John H. Dunning Prize, and the 1994-95 Louis Gottschalk Prize presented by American Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies mention her, btw The Globe and Mail obit of vickers mentions the Good Will Hunting item here. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found 1 and 2 within 30 seconds but I see Coolabahapple got there before me. On the subject of before, WP:BEFORE states "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.".--Pontificalibus 12:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the clear-cut examples found by Coolabahapple - notability very clearly established. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per sources. SL93 (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources are more than sufficient. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please close with snowball keep. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:04, 9 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 Escape room. Randykitty (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Koszalin escape room fire[edit]

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

With due respect to the victims, this doesn't seem to be a notable event, at least not yet. If there were a section in the Escape room article about accidents/incidents, it would be a clear merge, but there isn't. There is of course the possibility of this tragedy leading to legislation, but keeping it because of that at this juncture would be premature. ansh 666 02:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I wasn't aware when I nominated this that this is actually the only noteworthy accident to happen at an escape room so far, which I think is actually rather remarkable. In that case, a merge does seem to be the best option. ansh 666 19:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about it a bit more, I'm going to withdraw the nomination. ansh 666 19:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 02:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 02:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 02:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A fire, reported by the international mainstream media, which killed five teenagers who were taking part in a hobby which has become popular during the past few years, appears to be notable enough for an article. The likely reason for the lack of a section about incidents on escape room is due to no tragedies having happened at such places before. Jim Michael (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish language article has been nominated for deletion on plwiki. ~~I would say merge adding a section to escape room. NOTNEWS applies here. If the event has later effects, then we can always recreate the article.~~ Some later effects have been identified, so I no longer have an opinion on keep vs. merge. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 06:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree WP:NOTNEWS, if Keep as this tragic event ~~becomes truly~~ is significant ie. authorities introducing special legislation on escape rooms due to this then article may be recreated. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Escape room as it's definitely a significant incident in relation to that topic. That there isn't a section in that article to merge too isn't a barrier to merging - one can be created. -Pontificalibus 06:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, the article fails WP:NOTNEWS but there's no reason we should remove the information from the site entirely. If the fire becomes notable we can recreate the article. SportingFlyer talk 07:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Arguably notable for being the first reported deaths in an escape room, and early reports indicate that it will lead to some significant reforms/regulations in escape room safety at least in Poland: "...From tomorrow all escape rooms, game centers and clubs will undergo fire safety inspections with special attention paid to evacuation plans, escape routes in these type of locations."^[1]; "Previously, there was no official requirement for fire safety certificates at such locations."^[2] Safety concerns sparked by the incident have apparently led to the closure of a number of these rooms across Poland.^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ereb0r (talk • contribs) 01:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/04/europe/teens-die-poland-escape-room-fire-koszalin/index.html
^ https://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-escape-room-20190105-story.html
^ https://www.dw.com/en/poland-to-shut-down-13-escape-rooms-over-safety-flaws/a-46974351

That certainly makes it notable. Jim Michael (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not. WP:CRYSTAL, etc. The subject matter of this article is non-notable, Delete immediately. 50.111.13.35 (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An unprecedented number of inspections of escape rooms & an order to close some of them has occurred in reaction to this fire. The article quotes the Polish PM. That's already happened; it's not mere speculation. Jim Michael (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL doesn't work when it's already led to unprecendented changes and public discussion over how/to what extent these places are regulated. And again, that's on top of this being the first disaster of its kind anywhere. Nothing you wrote after "WP:CRYSTAL" stands as a sufficient counterpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ereb0r (talk • contribs) 19:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to escape room. Jmertel23 (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - this event is likely to have a big influence on the future of escape rooms, and I think it would be very appropriate to list it under Escape room#History, I see it is already briefly mentioned there. -Cake~talk 20:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the nation-wide emergency inspections and closures, with matching media coverage, has made this more than a horrible incident - it has its own notability and has satisfied LASTING. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have changed my "vote" as it is significant, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this appalling event gets worldwide coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - event is significant enough and has received sufficient coverage to be considered notable..--Staberinde (talk) 17:25, 10 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Sacred Heart Pioneers football team[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:GNG as I can find no reliable secondary sources that have coverage of this specific year's team. Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page is no different than thousands of other college football team pages, such as this one or the program's previous season, which are similar in their coverage and notability. The problem with the types of team pages that I create, is that they are retroactive to years in the past, making it hard to add in relevant storylines and coverage. That is why, as you will commonly see in most team pages a couple of years beyond 2019, most pages do not expand beyond a brief introduction, infobox, and their results. This page should be kept because it is just another entry in the program's history. Patriotsontop (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with mergeKeep this article by merging with Sacred Heart Pioneers football.--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 06:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Patriotsontop. A merge would be inappropriate; single seasons are split out to avoid crowding the main article. Mackensen (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasoning outlined at WP:CFBSEASON comes to mind in addition to reasons above. Merging to the school is clumsy and awkward as seasons pile up, so it makes sense to break each season out. As an alternative, enthusiastic editors sometimes make a season article for the conference but even that gets to be clumsy and awkward. Keeping the data separately makes much more sense and aids in navigation. Additional detail could be added, but that's an editing issue and not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – per Patriotsontop, and because Sacred Heart is a notable football team per WP:CFBTEAMS. There is no reason to single out this team and this year; there are several teams that Sacred Heart played in 2009 that do have separate articles (2009 Holy Cross; 2009 Bryant); in fact, there are 45 articles detailing 2009 FCS team seasons. Additionally, the article is notable per WP:CFBSEASON, and I found these: (1) 2009 Sacred Heart Football at the NEC's official website (2) 2010 article from the Connecticut Post titled "Sacred Heart picked to finish 8th in NEC" that details their 2009 season. I think the better approach to this is to encourage the creation, not the deletion of FBS/FCS season articles. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS: So, WP:CFBTEAMS states:

Single seasons (e.g. 2005 USC Trojans football team) can be considered notable. In this case the season must receive substantial non-routine/s coverage (see WP:ROUTINE). In general, seasons that culminate in a bowl game will likely be notable. However, not all seasons by teams that participate in college football are inherently notable.

As far as this team's notability for this season, it does not meet WP:CFBTEAMS because all of the coverage was WP:ROUTINE, including the article @Markvs88: added. I think WP:CFBTEAMS is being taken out of context to create multiple articles that aren't notable. Do we really need all these articles for these seasons? If a team has a notable season then, yes it may deserve an article but not for every season. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first off we don't WP:NEED anything. We could shut down Wikipedia and leave blankness on cyberspace. We choose to create an encyclopedia with content. "Need" is too arbitrary of a term, as that means different things to different people. Second, it looks like there is a good amount of coverage that is far beyond the sports scores and statistics--feature articles are WP:NOTROUTINE by any stretch. This simple game recap blasts that out of the water, and that's just one of the many games that season. As I stated below, it needs to be edited and researched, but there is no deadline. The threshold of notability is surpassed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - How hard did you search? I just added the ESPN reference for SHU vs Albany, and they have the same for every game. Markvs88 (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think what we're looking at here is a need for more research and content--which is an editing issue and not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, and here is why The editor proposing the deletion stated "as I can find no reliable secondary sources that have coverage of this specific year's team.". I legitimately asked how hard they'd looked since I found the ESPN link in approximately 12 seconds. Look, I'm all for deleting long-standing uncited articles and/or points but in this case the article was LESS ONE DAY OLD. There was no attempt by the deletion proponent at CN tagging, no discussion, just an immediate delete tag with obviously no (or at best very lazy) searching. So from my perspective we are most certainly looking at a deletion issue. Markvs88 (talk) 01:22, 7 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. Randykitty (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Torrance bowling alley shooting[edit]

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

With due respect to the victims, this event doesn't seem to be notable. While it is a bit early to tell, it seems that there's only routine coverage, and not every mass shooting is automatically notable. ansh 666 02:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 02:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 02:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't abandon this article just keep and perhaps the police will find the identity of the shooter and his motives sooner or later. (45.50.57.253) 05:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

remove - motives that are later to be found are, for now, failing (wp:notability) via (wp:crystal)--2600:8800:FF0E:1200:1962:B311:16B2:F79B (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep - the shooting has a lot of media coverage and it is possible that by tomorrow or the day after the identity of the shooter will be found (like every shooting) and his motives will be revealed. Keep in mind as one article from Britain's The Independent has revealed the police are currently in a manhunt. We'll just have to find out who the shooter is and what motivated him tomorrow or some other day as I said before. 4:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.50.57.253 (talk)

Define "a lot" - how so? It made the news as it was an event that is normally covered, but already it has faded far into the background. This is just drug/gang violence of no import or significance and Wiki does not keep articles of routine news stories. Delete!50.111.13.35 (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a mass shooting with an unknown motive, at a bowling alley, reported by the international mainstream media. Jim Michael (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. With no motive known, this doesn't rate an article; there are just too many mass shootings, unfortunately. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While newsworthy it is not WP:notable. As above, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The identity of the shooters is unlikely to change notability so no reason to keep the article in case the police find that out as suggested above. noq (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
strongly suggest that editors hold off commenting for a day or two, per WP:RAPID. This happened late at night on the weekend, let's give the press and the police a couple of news cycles to look at this. National Public Radio: "Employees told the Los Angeles Times that fights at the bowling alley are uncommon. Torrance police say investigators are still working to identify the people involved.".
Delete Just another gang-related/drug-related shooting of no particular interest for an encyclopedia. Delete immediately. 50.111.13.35 (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except that news and police sources haven't yet identified suspects or cause. People, please bring sources, not unsupported opinions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is tragic but it falls under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DELAY. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a major mass shooting, if not an obvious terrorist attack. If there was a political motive, they are trying to hide it. One wonders why so many editors are quick to call for the deletion of such major crime which is the equal of a terrorist attack in violence Bachcell (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The terrorism mention is pure speculation. It's not unlike other mass shootings in the US in its violence (see List of mass shootings in the United States in 2018 and List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019). GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make it clear that there is still an ongoing investigation and the police are going out of their way to find who did the shooting so like what one user said editors should hold off from deleting or editing the article. 24:15 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Delete — RAPID also works in that it urges editors to wait before creating such an article like this. NOTNEWS—a core policy—urges the same thing. Bachcell’s misguided, POV remark just exemplifies one part of why Wikipedia is not a mirror of the news and why these types of articles must be deleted.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mass shooting lack to qualify it to be notable? Jim Michael (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have that raises it above the other 2 that happened on the same day according to the List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019? Or earlier in 2019 or in the majority of entries in the 2018 equivalent?

Every mass shooting is notable enough to include in that list, and should not be deleted as "routine" or "not notable" or "not news". This terrorist style incident is also included on the current events page for this date. It is notable there are so many editors who believe "this type of article must be deleted" are found when other editors want to read about topics like crimes with no apparent political motive, deadly accidents with no apparent cause, and terrorist attacks Bachcell (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no dispute about listing it on that page - the dispute is whether it is sufficiently more notable to justify a standalone article about something that little is known about. Most of what has been written about it other than the basic facts is speculation. If you want to read about current criminal investigations the best place for that is a newspaper not an encyclopaedia noq (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CNN: official sources still looking for suspects, motives.[28]E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the police are continuing their investigation of who started the shooting and the motive for the brawl. So sooner or later they're going to find out. 15:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A44D:9200:1459:CF30:1EC7:39B7 (talk)

Just so. Which is why we should wait until this info comes out. When suspects, sequence of events, motives are described by official sources, the quesiton of notability will probably also be clear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This would be a significant event in most countries' context. Not a gang/drug related shooting accordingly to what's been reported so far. "We've never had an incident like this in the city of Torrance" - Torrance Police Chief. If in 30 days the context indicates it should be deleted the question could be revisited.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not in most countries context but that of the US. According to the List of mass shootings in the United States in 2018 article, there were 323 mass shooting incidents in the US last year, an average of nearly 30 a month. Rather than creating news articles in Wikipedia and then deciding at some future point in the future whether they are notable, why not create them in Wikinews instead. All the keep arguments I have seen so far seem to be related to news value and not encyclopaedic notability. noq (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly I have to agree with Noq, this falls under WP:ROUTINE coverage. You are going to have to show how this shooting stands out from the hundreds of others. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete incident began as a fight, ex-con on parole was arrested, it all looks tragically ROUTINE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have been helping to maintain the List of mass shootings in the United States and the 2018- and 2019-specific articles. I have to agree that this shooting does not really differentiate itself from the hundreds of mass shootings that occur yearly in the United States, and that although it's received some news coverage it is really not notable enough for Wikipedia. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a terrorism incident, seemingly neither random or premeditated. Just another day in US where guns settle arguments. WWGB (talk) 06:04, 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 redirect to Tomorrow's Dream. Randykitty (talk) 06:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow's Dream (song)[edit]

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

"The song was released as the only single from the album but failed to chart anywhere." That says it all: it fails WP:NSONG. Blank and retarget to Tomorrow's Dream as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}.

(Note: this nomination is a follow-up to Talk:Tomorrow's Dream (song)#Requested move 20 December 2018, now closed.) Narky Blert (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tomorrow's Dream per nominator. This information is pretty much already all there in the Vol. 4 article. The entry at the Tomorrow's Dream disambiguation page should then be altered to link to the album. --Michig (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tomorrow's Dream per nom. The detail is already there, and there isn't sufficient independent coverage of the song itself to warrant its own article. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:11, 7 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.

[1] ttps://www.cnn.com/2019/01/04/europe/teens-die-poland-escape-room-fire-koszalin/index.html

[2] ttps://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-escape-room-20190105-story.html

[3] ttps://www.dw.com/en/poland-to-shut-down-13-escape-rooms-over-safety-flaws/a-46974351

[1]

[2]

[3]