Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 August	18 August >

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. Vanamonde (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Home (Book)[edit]

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

A larger version of this sub-stub was previously deleted as advertising. An apparent COI based on the page creator's username, and no claim of notability for this yet-to-be-published book. A7 does not apply to books. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 20:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL is clear about short articles that are product announcements: not appropriate. There is no larger target for a merge, so delete. Bakazaka (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 01:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Too soon. Aoba47 (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flexible product development[edit]

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

WP:NOTESSAY, and WP:NEO. This term seems to be primarily associated with the book of the same title, used as a reference. I can't find many results for this term outside of references to this book. LynxTufts (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY and also does not appear to have enough sources. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 20:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 01:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lightly sourced neologism Chetsford (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There isn't a clear consensus for anything but deletion here, but I would be happy to refund the content to the userspace of anyone who wishes to perform a merger. Vanamonde (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holor[edit]

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

This mathematical entity has some coverage in some Google books, but that is only in primary sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I was hoping that this was somehow related to holographic algorithm (a notable topic) but that's "holant" not "holor". Anyway, this seems to be a neologism from a 1986 book that has gained only a very small amount of traction in the study of sensory perception, and none at all in mathematics. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A term coined by two people that hasn't had enough pickup by others to qualify as notable. XOR'easter (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An approach that never gained secondary attention among the experts. I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect to Parry Moon, but there is so little coverage, it is hard to argue that it is a plausible search term. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 23:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Parry Moon and/or Domina Eberle Spencer. In 2012, I found the word holor in the book Vectors (Moon and Spencer, Van Nostrand, 1965) and wondered why I had not heard of it. Wikipedia told me that they had coined the word, and that was helpful to me at the time. Wikipedia's coverage should be similar to its coverage of the word affinor. JonH (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly merging and redirecting would be best. The redirect should probably be to a section. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomadicare[edit]

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

Organization exhaustively sourced to non-RS sources such as virtualfoundation.org, a travel agency website called nomadicexpeditions.com, etc. There are a couple RS sources that don't actually contain any information on the organization, for instance, WHDH [1] is a broken link and PBS [2] simply mentions the group in a "thanks" line on a film credit list. A BEFORE search fails to find anything substantial or usable. Chetsford (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 18:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage. @Chetsford: I read the WHDH article (a mirror of which I won't link for copyright concerns), and it is worse than a minor mention... wumbolo ^^^ 19:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marc west[edit]

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

Previously CSD#7 as Marc West. Still no indication of notability. Sourced entirely to subject's own webpage and youtube. SummerPhD^v2.0 17:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete as an inevitable g5. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SEP Backup[edit]

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

Non-notable software developed by a German company (with a US subsidiary). I was only able to find 1 German-language review (remaining Google hits are press releases, advertorials and passing mentions). Current sources are not independent. A trivial user poll by Gartner (removed) doesn't help to establish notability. GermanJoe (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find no significant coverage. Fails WP:NORG by a wide margin. Rentier (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for clarity: the added Evaluator Group link doesn't appear to be an "independent" source (as Wikipedia uses the term for notability discussions). The firm does reviews for hire in close cooperation with the reviewed companies. Such reviews may be used for uncontroversial information, but they are not considered truely independent sources to establish notability. GermanJoe (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and GermanJoe Daask (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#General Authority Seventies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio R. M. Costa[edit]

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

A non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. The primary sources in the article do not serve to establish notability, and WP:BEFORE searches are only providing name checks, passing mentions and brief quotations from the subject. Not finding any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. See also: WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For several years he was head of over 1 million Mormons in Brazil. Also as a member of the Presidency of the Seventy he was among the top 22 leaders of the LDS Church. I am sure we could find some additional articles with a good search of Portugese SSources. However there are multiple mentions in articles in the Salt Lake Tribune.03:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)

Comment – @Johnpacklambert: Could you provide some links to the Salt Lake Tribune articles that you mention? I've only found very brief, passing mentions and name checks that do not serve to establish notability. Also, subjects that the LDS church find to be noteworthy are not necessarily notable as per Wikipedia's standards. Multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject are needed to qualify notability. Mormon subjects and leaders do not get a free pass for an article without said independent coverage, because there is no guideline or policy that allows such presumed notability for Mormon subjects. You state that Portuguese sources are likely to exist, but without providing any examples here, it's essentially a WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument that lacks qualification via proof of said sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a notice about this disucssion on the talk page of the Latter Day Saint movement Wikipedia project page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As I mentioned a short while ago in another deletion discussion, the problem is that the leaders of the LDS Church are notable primarily because of their service in the Church. If they did not or had not served in those assignments, they as Church members would be no more notable than I am. And again, I recognize that there needs to be some standard of and accountability to ensure that such subjects meet Wikipedia's notability standards and have sufficient independent sourcing. That said, as I also mentioned elsewhere, I am working towards finding the right place to talk about establishing an exception which would apply to the notability of general authority seventies, but have not been able to get anywhere, and have merely been repeatedly redirected to what was supposed to be a "more relevant" location to have that discussion take place. Additionally, am I the only one who is dumbfounded by the fact that in my decade as an editor here, the deletion discussions for such articles have only become a "thing" here on Wikipedia within the last couple of years or so, especially since the notability and reliable sourcing standards have not, to my knowledge, changed all that much during that time? I would therefore again respectfully request that this deletion discussion (and those relating to the deletion of any other articles about general authority seventies) be put on hold while I try to work through the channels I have available to establish notability. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I don't view the present status quo regarding notability guidelines as a problem at all. The guidelines were created based upon consensus regarding what is worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. Also, I don't view Wikipedia as a repository for every person in the world that has received significant coverage only in primary sources. There are other websites and resources available for those that do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Also, I do not want to place this discussion on hold at all. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I recognize and support the evolution of policy over the years. But most of the policies under which articles such as this were originally created have not fundamentally changed within the last decade, so if an article was not a problem then, I don't see why that should be the case now. I also did not in any way intend to imply that every person in the world who is given significant coverage only in primary sources should have an article here on Wikipedia, and apologize if anything I have said has been interpreted as such. That said, for a religious denomination that has 16+ million members worldwide, and is recognized as the fourth (or even third)-largest religious denomination in the world, there should be a similar (but certainly not identical) policies establishing notability for full-time leaders of this Church. And again, through no fault of my own, my efforts to try and establish such an exception have me running around in circles. It is certainly up to you whether or not to halt the discussion on this nomination. Either way, I will continue to do what I can to find the right place to have the discussion that many editors have agreed needs to take place to establish notability standards. And again, if the consensus opts for deletion, I will accept that decision (whether or not I personally agree with it). But it seems to me that continuing the deletion discussion for such articles may be somewhat disingenuous if earnest efforts are being made by myself and others to resolve the concerns that led to the deletion nominations to begin with. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Same issues and arguments as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcos A. Aidukaitis (2nd nomination). Daask (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#General Authority Seventies. Proposals to exempt LDS leaders from the WP:GNG have consistently failed to achieve consensus support (see examples in 2014, 2016, and 2017), so the subject has to be evaluated under WP:GNG. Sources currently in article are not independent under WP:IIS and do not count toward establishing notability. Even with the large amount of text in this discussion, no independent sources have been produced to support notability claims under WP:GNG. A sensible alternative to deletion is to redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#General Authority Seventies, where information on the subject is already provided. Open to alternatives if in-depth coverage emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Young (Video Designer)[edit]

Note: May need to check the subject's studio for notability as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The sources I find using a Google search are either brief mentions or primary. Fails WP:GNG. The article itself doesn't even make a claim to the subject's notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; there is no significant coverage of the subject, just of some of the productions in which he has been involved. The Tony nomination borders on notable, but doesn't quite make it as per WP:ANYBIO. Perhaps it is just too soon, and future Tony nominations or awards might enable him to meet notability guidelines. Jmertel23 (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ditto with the above. Nothing seemingly notable beyond the Tony Nomination. It's hard to find things on him as well, but this might partially be due to other people called Adam Young. Was able to find his website though, or at least, I think it's his website. Maybe someone with more time on their hands than me can look into it some more. Vulpicula (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus seems to be that this is notable, and while ideally I'd like to have more than three participants, it's already been relisted twice and I don't think things are going to change. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hel (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. The best source I can find is just a passing mention in this book. This band has been around since the 2000s, making the usual "there might be sources in non-digital content" claim slightly implausible. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. The editor whose username is Z0 13:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there appear to be sources in Swedish - [3][4][5]. Not a great collection of sources, but considering the era (late 1990 to early 2000s), it's just about passable. Hzh (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is an interview, the second is a source by Nordic Resistance Movement, a neo-Nazi movement which has been described as a terrorist organization and the third is obviously not a reliable source. I don't see how this is passable. The editor whose username is Z0 13:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first would suggest that there was a greater level of coverage on presumably a controversial aspect of the band, which would be linked to the second. Hzh (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there truly was coverage, it wouldn't be difficult to locate reliable and independent sources to establish notability, which must not be based on assumptions. The sources you provided do not satisfy the notability criteria for both general or music. Presuming there exists a greater level of coverage is et suppositio nil ponit in esse. The editor whose username is Z0 14:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added the part about the era (yes, archiving of news sources to be made available for search on the internet is a real issue, a problem encountered in many articles), and the issue with WP:INTERVIEW is more nuanced and the concern is more about WP:PROMOTION. Hzh (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(comment, not argument) It's not necessarily easy to locate sources in Swedish, because you have to wade through a lot of false positives. "Hel", in addition to being a core figure in Norse mythology (from which the group got the name), also means "whole", "entire", "intact", "complete" etc, and is used in many idioms. It's a very common word no matter what you combine it with, even though the band (WP:IKNOWIT) was not insignificant in their genre back then.

With that said, no matter the potential difficulty, we need to have sources and verifiability or we can't have an article, of course. /Julle (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This band appears to have had a significant enough impact on the early 2000s viking metal scene to meet the notability standard. It's somewhat difficult to track down sources in part because there are at least three European metal bands called Hel. Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passable number of sources available. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 15:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Santos[edit]

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

Non-notable radio host of a non-notable show, fails WP:GNG. All sources I can find are from the stations/unreliable sources. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not because the person doesn't have much of an online presence doesn't mean that he is not notable. There is enough evidence including images and videos to support the notability of this page. Please do not remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalaboomsky (talk • contribs) 14:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not demonstrated by images or videos. It is demonstrated by reliable source coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just tell me what needs to be removed or questionable areas on the article that needs removing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalaboomsky (talk • contribs) 15:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this discussion, specifying which Wikipedia notability policy the subject meets would be a helpful first step. Bakazaka (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has advertorial overtones; the referencing is entirely to primary and unreliable sources, not to any evidence of reliable source coverage about him in real media; and Kalaboomsky's use of the plural we, rather than "I", above, is pinging my conflict of interest radar. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Article is updated and removed areas with "advertorial" overtones. Pardon me for using "we". I always have a personal tendency that if i am not using my name, i refer to my callsign a third person. I guess its not going to work on this community. So sorry. I never mean to confuse you.
Delete Search finds lack of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources, so fails WP:GNG. Additionally, article uses misleading citations. For example, the film review cited to support subject's role in movie does not mention the subject at all. Bakazaka (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment additional citation is added for your reference.

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. So Why 15:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Jack Logan Show[edit]

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

Non-notable show (of a potentially non-notable person.) Aside from interviewing a few notable people, I see no evidence that this show has received any outside coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you need images and links, i can upload them now and show you why this page is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalaboomsky (talk • contribs) 14:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are tons of online sources to prove that this a notable show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalaboomsky (talk • contribs) 15:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Global Pinoy Radio isn't a worldwide shortwave station, but ""Your Online Music Authority". This is a plain-and-simple podcast out of many podcasts trying to WP:NOTWEBHOST their page here. Nate • (chatter) 20:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Global Pinoy Radio was mentioned as basis as to how the program started in 2013. It is part of the shows history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalaboomsky (talk • contribs) 02:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Clarifying how a station is broadcast helps others out. Not attacking it, just stating why I feel it doesn't meet notability. Nate • (chatter) 19:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment That is your feeling and I understand what you feel. I have updated the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalaboomsky (talk • contribs) 01:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear WP:NOTPROMO issues and misleading RS usage. The CNN source, for example, does not mention the subject. Search reveals little to no evidence in RS that subject meets any notability guidelines. Bakazaka (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment additional citation was added to show the collaboration of Jack Logan and Greco Belgica on #GrecoLive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalaboomsky (talk • contribs) 05:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Please don't use hashtags here. This is an encyclopedia, not Twitter. Nate • (chatter) 19:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment There is actually a # in the show's name. See link. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalaboomsky (talk • contribs) 01:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Style guide is for radio shows, it's what said on the air. Unless they seriously say 'Welcome to hastag Greco Live!'...best to just leave it out. Nate • (chatter) 02:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.facebook.com/search/str/%23GrecoLIVE/keywords_blended_videos

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. So Why 15:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer A. Goodman[edit]

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

Non-notable actress who has credits mostly as an extra/unnamed character, only "notable" role is a lead in a show that has no coverage and was canceled after 1 episode. I can find little in the way of coverage of her under her maiden or current name. Fails NACTOR and GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "up and coming" is another phrase for run of the mill. She has never had a role that was substantial enough to have a last name. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Removed the phrase based on your feedback. This article pass 3,4 of WP:FILMMAKER.Srirammedfri (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. Her roles have all been insignificant on the notable shows and her only leading role was in a one-episode and done show that didn't make it past the pilot and has no coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor roles in productions where a major role might qualify, and no reliable independent secondary sources that are actually about the subject. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bytro Labs[edit]

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

An article about a subsidiary of the Stillfront Group, sourced to a routine listing, a primary source and a product announcement. The article has twice been moved from Draft into mainspace by WP:SPA WP:COI editor Max Bytro whose other edits concerned one of the firm's products, deleted at AfD in June. Searches are not finding the coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we're missing an article on the parent organization (Stillfront Group), into which a number of articles might more reasonably be organized rather than as separate articles. I see a few routine hits for this particular developer that might reasonably live there as it exists. --Izno (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I did consider the alternative possibility of creating Stillfront Group and replacing this and other subsidiary articles with redirects, but, though Stillfront Group AB is listed on the Stockholm Stock Exchange, my searches were not finding sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH, in my opinion. AllyD (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just not notable by itself, no reliable sources. If somebody created a reasonable article for the parent, I might recommend merging it into that article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:Corp, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cusrow J Dubash[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG, promotional, and has no independent sources. AmericanAir88 (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find trusted sources supporting his notability. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai Expat[edit]

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

Apparently never was notable and is not notable. Not every failed business is notable. Google search finds this article, its own unmaintained web site, and very little else. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting WP:NCORP. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sheikh Iqbal[edit]

The result was speedy delete

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

No evidence of biographical notability or entertainment notability. Only source listed is IMDB, which is not reliable. Google search finds this article, Facebook, and other people with similar names. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article has no reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We would need somebody who speaks Punjabi to help us here. Sam Sailor 07:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G12, article is a copyright infringement. funplussmart (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

José L. Alonso[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks, quotations and very brief passing mentions. The article is entirely reliant on primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. Also, importantly, per WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– Independent coverage in reliable sources that provide significant coverage does not appear to exist for this subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO and does not have any independent sources. A run of the mill bio. AmericanAir88 (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. Same issues and arguments as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcos A. Aidukaitis (2nd nomination). Daask (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Won Yong Ko[edit]

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

A non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks and very brief mentions. The article is almost entirely reliant on primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. Furthermore, per: WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It also fails WP:ANYBIO AmericanAir88 (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and AmericanAir88. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Seventy (LDS Church). Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arnulfo Valenzuela[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to minor passing mentions, quotations and name checks. The article is entirely reliant on primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. In my WP:BEFORE searches, I did find this source, but it consists mostly of quotations from the subject, provides no biographical information about the subject, and ultimately does not provide enough coverage outside of the quotations to count as significant coverage. Furthermore, per: WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keepsignificant leader in the LDS Church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – There is no guideline or policy that provides presumed notability for Mormon subjects or leaders. Subjects that the LDS church considers to be noteworthy are not automatically notable as per Wikipedia's standards. Multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject are needed to qualify notability and an article. Such subjects do not get a free pass for an article without said independent coverage, and personal opinion that a subject is notable by default per being a leader in the LDS church is not backed by any Wikipedia notability guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Seventy (LDS Church). Given that proposals to exempt LDS leaders from the WP:GNG have consistently failed to achieve consensus support (see examples in 2014, 2016, and 2017), the subject has to be evaluated under WP:GNG. Sources currently in article are not independent under WP:IIS and do not count toward establishing notability. Search does not find WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. At first it looked like there was some coverage in Deseret News, but a closer look showed that it was reprinted from Church News verbatim and therefore not independent. A brief mention in a Salt Lake Tribune article about same-sex marriage in Mexico showed up across several different searches, so I added it to the article, but it's still not in-depth. The subject does not seem to pass WP:GNG. A sensible alternative to deletion is to redirect to Seventy (LDS Church), where the subject can be discussed in a more notable context, if desired. Open to alternatives if in-depth coverage emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a better redirect target would be List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#General Authority Seventies, where information on subject already exists. Bakazaka (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geje Eustaquio[edit]

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

Subject is a MMA fighter. Fails WP:MMABIO as subject has not fought in tier one promotion. PRehse (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 11:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of being a national level Wushu champion and ONE Championship - it may not be the UFC, but it's a pretty significant east-Asian tournament. Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMMA is a long standing consensus and clear with regard to MMA fighter notability. ONE Championship is not top tier.PRehse (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notability criteria for MMA fighters is well established. There's no indication he was a national wushu champion (non-independent source merely says "he was invited to be on the national team"). Even if he was a national champion that's insufficient to meet WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 13:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 13:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly does not meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters. Being on the Philippine national wushu team, even if true, is insufficient to meet the notability criteria for martial artists (WP:MANOTE). Finally, routine coverage and promotion of his MMA fights fails to show that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Man I don't get it, why do people here in wikipedia consider ONE Championship a second tier promotion where in fact it's the BIGGEST MMA promotions in ASIA.^[1] I think the real debate here is not against Eustaquio but i think it's on the side of ONE Championship. I have read some of the arguments against ONE Promotions, and its only 1 thing and that is they lack on well-known and highly rank fighters. Geje Eustaquio is a well-known fighter because of multiple media publications about him. But not a Top rated Fighter according to many MMA rankings because he fights on an outside western country promotions if he fights on UFC he will be easily on the Top 10 no doubt about it.

But currently there is NO independent MMA Rankings which covers all the MMA fighters around the globe and I would love to hear about it(if there's any), and we all know that there is NO independent World MMA Title to Fight on unlike Boxing were 4 independent organizations offer world championship titles. Any rich businessmen can create there own MMA promotions and get several high tier fighters, Top Rank for example can create a MMA promotions and MMA Title with the right MONEY to lure high ranking MMA fighters from multiple ranking publications to come to them, even Super Star Mayweather can create his own too. So I think that this should not be a standard basis of considering what Top tier MMA Promotions are, I think we should add the most important of all (Cultural and Influential Impact of the Organization for the Sport like "What did the promotion contributed to the MMA?","How did the organization help the fighters?","Did it improve the MMA scene in the region?","Did the MMA Promotion influence the economic, political and cultural identity of society on its region?) and so on. (i hope i'm making sense on this but yah.)

And ONE Championship has already made HISTORY not just here in the South East Asia and ASIA but the whole world, it has a large pool of fan base bigger than other top tier mma promotions, the GLOBAL media outlets are talking about ONE MMA, fight fans around the globe known ONE Championship, MMA is flourishing in South East Asia because of ONE Championship., and maybe they the ONE Championship will revamp the dying Japan MMA scene. ONE MMA has molded the future generations of MMA practitioners in Asia generally speaking, ONE has built the foundation of what might happen next on the promotions of MMA (like: show casing different martial arts in 1 fight card, (Grappling Only Match-up, Kick Boxing Muay Thai and now Boxing). and yet people disregard ONE MMA promotions as if it only exist in an unknown part of the world. They made several events on several countries and distributed it to influenced an estimate 1.7 billion people around the globe. And it's on business after 7 years and many more to come. You can't disregard someones achievement because he just fought on so called 2nd tier organization, even if the fights fans knows who is he, where he fights and who is he fighting. I believe this are the basis of why I firmly nominate ONE Championship to be promoted to Top Tier Organization and even if i fail to convince you my fellow Wikipedians on this one. ONE Championship and the people who supported it, have already made a significant mark on the global sports landscape. This is my argument same with Belingon on the other page. (English is not my first language, my deepest apologies on my mistakes and if you guys need sources, i will provide it later on but for now sorry) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonxtx (talk • contribs) 20:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You posted this same comment at Kevin Belingon's AfD discussion so I'll refer you to my comment there about the history and requirements of MMA organizational and fighter notability on WP. Please note we're not saying that ONE is not notable, just that its fighters have not shown they're generally on the same level as say, the UFC. Papaursa (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianmazique/2018/08/20/one-championship-and-ufc-represent-global-duopoly-in-martial-arts/#772cff5843d4

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus seems to be that this is notable based on the found sources. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sinking (album)[edit]

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

Album that never reached the top 100, passes no notability guidelines. Redditaddict6 9 10:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 13:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 13:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep No evidence of notability for the album found in search. The UK album chart normally only gives Top 100 anyway, so charting over 100 is not considered significant. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Hzh (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed as Richard3120 had found additional reviews that appear to show notability (I can't check the sources, but I'm trusting they are legitimate full reviews). Hzh (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh: yes, they are full reviews, not just two lines as part of a quick round-up along with a dozen other albums. Obviously you'll have to take my word for it, but I've added full details of the references, down to the page number, so that anyone who gets their hands on a copy of these music magazines can check the reviews and the quotes taken from them. The NME review in particular is quite a bit longer than the brief quotes I've extracted from it. Richard3120 (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. It's always difficult to find sources that are not readily available online, true for a lot of subjects, therefore credit is due for finding them. Hzh (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was surprised that this album didn't chart, given that it contains the group's two biggest hit singles, but the Aloof were a reasonably well known group on the mid-90s dance scene in the UK, and this album was their high point – the two hit singles had a fair bit of airplay on BBC Radio 1's specialist music programmes. I was confident that I would find reviews of this album, given that the group wasn't unknown, and I've added reviews from Melody Maker, NME and Q, plus an interview with them from Muzik magazine. I think this should be enough to pass WP:NALBUM as a stub article, and I would think there is probably more out there in the specialist music magazines of the time such as Mixmag and DJ Mag, which are not available online. In light of the information I have added, I don't know whether Hzh would like to reassess his/her vote. Richard3120 (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good work finding the reviews. I would discount the AllMusic one as it is too short (I had already seen it before), as I can't check the others, if they are full reviews, then I'd be happy to change my vote. Hzh (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The album may not have sold loads of copies at the time but as mentioned the band were part of the UK dance scene and the album was critically acclaimed. Not everyone wants to read about Thriller or Sgt. Pepper! The recent additions have brought the article to a higher standard. --Geach (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The album contains a UK top 30 single, was critically-acclaimed, has multiple references, and charted within the UK top 200 albums chart as evidenced here - http://www.zobbel.de/cluk/CLUK_A.HTM . The US Billboard chart extends to a top 200, and albums charting on it, regardless of position, are generally considered notable. The UK is one of the largest music markets in the world, therefore reaching their chart is notable.Nqr9 (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While there may be argument for keeping, the chart is not one of them. WP:NALBUMS criteria requires that the chart to be the "country's national music chart", and in UK that is the Official Charts Company which normally lists only the top 100. Argument using Billboard is irrelevant. Hzh (talk) 10:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017 European cold wave[edit]

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

WP:SYNTHESIS of ordinary weather reports. Winter is cold; who knew? Nice pictures, though. — JFG ^talk 09:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full AfD list of non-notable cold waves:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 European cold wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Western United States freeze: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter of 2010–11 in Great Britain and Ireland: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring 2013 United Kingdom cold spell: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/November 2014 North American cold wave: No consensus; overlaps November 13–21, 2014 North American winter storm and 2014–15 North American winter, potential to merge
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/February 2015 North American cold wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siberian Express: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2017 European cold wave (2nd nomination): Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017–18 North American cold wave: No consensus; suggested merge to 2017–18 North American winter

Thanks for participating. — JFG ^talk 10:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC) — Updated 09:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep International coverage of an out of the ordinary event. Agathoclea (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)I[reply]
Keep. Substantial international coverage of major and extremely abnormal (i.e. much more than just "Winter is cold...") weather event causing large-scale disruption and multiple deaths. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Winter happens every year, sometimes worse than other years, and broken weather records are quite frequent. Sources are contemporaneous weather news that do not provide lasting impacts or notability. Reywas92^Talk 18:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not synthesis. Here's an Atmosphere article specifically discussing its extent. Daß Wölf 00:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a useful academic analysis of the phenomenon, many thanks for finding it! Care to add some words to the article citing this? — JFG ^talk 08:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a climatologist but I might give it a try. There's already a fair bit about Greece in there. Daß Wölf 01:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 10:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contains adequate sources and has great international coverage. AmericanAir88 (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Highly notable event documented by multiple sources. This event had extremely severe impacts on parts of Europe, particularly the high death toll and the near-depletion of coal reserves of a country. LightandDark2000 (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 15:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yoon Hwan Choi[edit]

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

A non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks and passing mentions. The article is entirely reliant on primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. Furthermore, per: WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added find sources template above using Hangul name from article. Bakazaka (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After two full relistings, no consensus for a specific outcome has emerged in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of double albums[edit]

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

WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTDIR, there are already examples on double album which should more than suffice for the purposes of encyclopedic content on the subject. Has absolutely no references to reliable sources as is required per {{dynamic list}} as well as plenty of non-notable entries. I can think of at least one example of a notable double album which presently isn't mentioned in the article. I'll note that Category:Double albums was deleted following a discussion in 2012, so really, this shouldn't remain either. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. There are literally thousands of albums that could qualify for such an unwieldy list topic. Ajf773 (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:LISTCRUFT is not policy; it's just WP:CRUFTCRUFT. And WP:NOTDIR is about commercial directories, not wikipedia lists. The relevant guideline here is WP:LISTN and the topic passes it – see the Daily Telegraph or NME, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 09:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the best you can come up with? "Best of" lists?. Quite the same argument as we have in this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of classic rock songs (2nd nomination). Ajf773 (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame people like to bash Andrew for his "keep everything, ever" reputation, but by presenting some sources he is on point here and makes an appropriate argument towards keeping the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete - Too wide and arbitrarily scoped list, with too little utility value -- DexterPointy (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content above per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think articles like this show the problems of using WP:LISTN as a guideline to prove notability... the topic is notable, but with WP:LISTN saying that not every individual entry needs to meet notability, it opens up a host of issues. Despite the lead saying "...in which the initial release of the album includes two (or more) LP records or Compact Discs", there are many albums in the list which are included because CD reissues in the past 20 years have included a "Deluxe Edition" with a bonus disc, although the original release in the 1960s or 70s was only a single album. How about albums which were released as a single CD but a double LP? What about Brothers in Arms, which was usually available simply as a single LP or CD, but a 2-LP vinyl version was also available? What about the Now That's What I Call Music! albums and indeed many, many compilation albums which are often double albums? This is why simply quoting WP:LISTN has its limitations, and there needs to be some criteria to limit the scope of a list like this. Richard3120 (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: I think the obvious starting point is to only allow entries into the list where they appear in a reliable source talking about lists of double albums. The Rolling Stone source I just added, documenting a readers' poll of their ten favourite double albums, would be such an example. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, I totally agree with you, and this is my point about WP:LISTN – I don't disagree at all that double albums as a topic are notable, but as the guideline says "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable", it leads to the situation where any double album has been added to the list, and I believe, like you, that individual entries DO need to have been discussed in reliable sources... I think it's a failing of the WP:LISTN guideline that it allows indiscriminate lists to be created. If we could establish a consensus and some criteria about what should be kept in this article, I would probably vote to keep it – the lead has a vague statement about being released on double LP or CD on its first release, but this clearly hasn't been adhered to as CD reissues with bonus discs have been included. And we should probably limit it to studio or live albums, and discard greatest hits or compilations. Richard3120 (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think LISTN can still be fit for purpose. If a list is independently notable, by definition it will have sources that state what the list is made up of. We don't have a reliable source listing every single double album ever, so I think we can chop a lot of the chaff out and still adhere to it. Maybe if it was renamed List of best selling double albums or List of critically acclaimed double albums it would make more sense. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article needs a good blast of dynamite, but with an appropriate lead explaining the expanding significance of the double album and its importance in rock cultures eg: Blonde on Blonde, The Beatles (album), Electric Ladyland, and using sources such as this, this and this, we could get a featured list out of this. I believe Miss Sarita is kicking around wondering what featured list to write next, well here's something for you. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you seen my "To do" list, Ritchie333?! Hahaha! A sortable table is definitely crucial to cleaning this list up, which I'm fully capable of chipping away at, little by little. I would just need a little direction (e.g., what columns to put, whether to make multiple tables under different subsections, etc.). Once a consensus is made, let me know! I'm happy to help where I can. — Miss Sarita 16:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ritchie333, I'm not completely adverse to your ideas about changing the article title, purpose, and content by WP:TNT. But in combining those ideas, you are basically suggesting to create a new article, not keeping the existing one. Your keep vote is therefore confusing ... you want to keep a glass of water, except it should be made of porcelain instead of glass, and it should contain tea instead of water. Cup of tea? Ubehage (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Trigger's Broom is a better analogy, but essentially it might be useful in future to look at the article's history and retrieve stuff out of it. If the article is deleted and re-created, that can't happen. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Ritchie333 Moving it to draft space preserves revision history. Right? Even if not then "might be useful in future" is kinda crystal ball joggling. Ubehage (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content above per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 10:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Evans[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. He is mentioned in many references but in passing associated with his positions at CNN. There are two in-depth pieces but both are from university websites and one is content provided by him ("CNN London Chief Shares Story"). CNMall41 (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, at least on the face of it. "Three Emmy awards, two Edward R. Murrow awards, three Peabody awards, and a Prix Bayeux" should cover WP:ANYBIO. › Mortee _talk 02:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mortee - On its face, it would meet notability; however, after conducting WP:BEFORE, it does not. Since we base pages on reliable sources, we need to be able to find them to verify what is in the body. There are a few sources that mention that awards, but they are his profiles or from his college, none of which are considered reliable or independent. You would think that someone winning all these awards would have sources to prove it, but a search for them wound up finding nothing usable. In fact, a search of the Peabody award site itself shows that CNN (not him) was awarded a Peabody. Quote - "For its continued investment in such war coverage, especially as global conflicts simmer, we commend CNN and honor it with a Peabody Award" - --CNMall41 (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that wasn't an individual award, but he was named as part of the team it was awarded to (per your ref). Same for the Emmy here, for example. The Prix Bayeux is more of a stretch. It explicitly went to Nic Robertson, though for a particular story presented by him that Evans produced.[6] So he's produced a lot of award-winning work, which isn't nothing, but without individual wins, perhaps ANYBIO isn't clear-cut. You're right that finding in-depth coverage isn't as easy as one might hope. I'll strike my vote for now and try to revisit this in more depth. › Mortee _talk 16:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 10:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. So Why 15:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valdas Dambrauskas[edit]

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

Football manager who has never managed a club in a fully-professional league or a senior national team. Prod removed by article's creator without a rationale. Number 5 7 12:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fails WP:NFOOTBALL but may pass WP:GNG with Lithuanian sources ,he was voted the Manager of the Season in 2016 A Lyga and has won the National league twice and all major cups in Lithuanian Football as per this. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Pharaoh of the Wizards, this is a prime example of where we would keep a football article on WP:GNG grounds even though it's a clear WP:NFOOTY failure. I haven't looked yet — he may yet fail WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 02:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 10:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after my comment above, likely passes WP:GNG due to extensive coverage on Lithuanian sites, such as: [7] (I don't speak Lithuanian, so can't assess for WP:ROUTINE, however there is a lot of coverage.) SportingFlyer talk 12:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martín Pedreira[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable as either scholor or musician. Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:MUSICBIO Ifnord (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More information on renowned guitarist, professor and theorist Martín Pedrira: https://www.guitarraclasicadelcamp.com/viewtopic.php?t=9087 https://www.guitarraclasicadelcamp.com/viewtopic.php?t=25469 https://www.guitarraclasicadelcamp.com/viewtopic.php?t=17281--Ernesto53 (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 10:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 09:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kelleher[edit]

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

Failed U.S. Senate Nominee that doesn't pass WP:NPOL. Only independent sources are related to his failed candidate status. Redditaddict6 9 09:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 09:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 09:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep He was a notable perennial candidate written up in the NYT and in Politics as well as in every paper in Montana, particularly for his 2008 run. Possibly this could be merged some article on that contest. Mangoe (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perennial candidates do not add to notability. Nor does serving in a state constitutional convention.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This individual clearly passes WP:GNG — from the 1980s into the 21st century he had extensive coverage in many state and some national publications. NPOL is a set of guidelines, WP:GNG is policy. In this case, he was notable, not merely a perennial candidate, but as a delegate to Montana's 1972 Constitutional Convention. He also was a truly unique figure who had a career that spanned several decades. He ran under the banner of multiple political psrties, and his unusual support for a "parliamentary style" of government was rather unique for an American politician. His surprising stint as the GOP nominee against Max Baucus in 2008, having previously run both as a Green and as a Democrat clearly tops many other people notorious for unusual stunts (such as, to give only one examble, Lawnchair Larry).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 12:59, 18 August 2018 (PDT) (UTC)
Keep: Keep as per montanabw's statements. Also, there are dozens of news articles available for this individual to support GNG. But first see this link Our Campaigns a web site that shows much of his political work from 1964 through 2008. Note that he died in 2011. Here are just a few examples of coverage for him that spans the last two decades: [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12]. I also have subscriptions to newspapers.com and newspaperarchives.com. They are dozens of articles on him. Here's one clipping I took from 1996: [13] from the Great Falls Tribune on June 2, 1996. There is definitely a case for longevity as a unique figure as stated above and significant news coverage. I can search for more news coverage if needed. dawnleelynn^(talk) 21:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)~~Redirect~~ to United States Senate election in Montana, 2008. Looking at the reliable sources available on the internet, besides the numerous obits the individual comes up a lot. That said most are only passing mention of the subject of this article, such as the parliamentary style proposal mentioned above, and this one regarding this election, or this election and do not rise to the status of significant coverage. The New York Times article is an obit, (wrong Robert Kelleher) ~~and is the benchmark for having an article for a deceased American to have an obit in the NYT (and elsewhere)?~~ I am curious as to The New York Times article mentioned above, as my google-fu is failing me at the moment. Is it in context to one of of the elections, and is it significant coverage? The subject of the article in question is quoted here, but it is not significant coverage about them self. Therefore per WP:POLOUTCOMES, I have to say a redirect is in order, as the individual was a major candidate in a federal race, but did not appear to be notable outside of that context. Of course if significant coverage and general notability can be established, the redirect can always be changed back into a stand alone article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While local sources this article by the Helena Independent Record, and this article by the Montana Standard clearly are significant coverage, and are sufficient for the subject of the article to pass WP:GNG. Therefore I am changing my opinion to Keep. Thanks to dawnleelynn (talk · contribs) for finding these.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable per the sources for a Wikipedia article. We have multiple levels of notability on WP which can determine if subject matter should be included. This topic is notable enough.(Talk page stalker on occasion)(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in Missoulian, Montana Standard and New York Times. Obviously meets WP:GNG: "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --RexxS (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in published, reliable, neutral sources, locally, statewide, and nationally. Candidate in several federal elections. - Tim1965 (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a notable perennial candidate who has received coverage in national publications. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted under G11. (non-admin closure) — Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twomey Center for Peace Through Justice[edit]

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

Fail WP:GNG, promo. Another small center belonging to Loyola University New Orleans without own notability The Banner talk 09:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The efforts of Louis J. Twomey, S.J., as founder of Christ's Blueprint of the South and of this Institute, long before such efforts were common, makes this institute notable in itself. See the book on him and his biography at New Catholic Encyclopedia. Other recent coverage would include a spinoff, an update in The Louisiana Weekly, and mention in The American Jesuits: a History. Also, a search of newspapers yields dozens of hits for Christ's Blueprint for the South., for Twomey and for Twomey Center for Peace Through Justice. Under its previous incarnations it also had considerable newspaper coverage, as Institute of Industrial Relations and Institute of Human Relations. Please see my completion of my comments below. Jzsj (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps mr. Twomey is notable on his own but that does not make the centre notable. The Banner talk 11:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - You came in while I was still completing refs, please check again. While Twomey was a one-man-show (from 1947) for many years before his efforts at social justice were popular at the University or in the South, his work is carried on through the Institute which took on several names over time and remains active independently of him and as a tribute to his efforts. Jzsj (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - It would be nice when you came up with some independent sources about the centre itself. Nor the magazine, nor mr. Twomey make the centre notable. The Banner talk 13:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are many articles in the newspapers listed above under Institute of Industrial Relations, Institute of Human Relations, and Twomey Center for Peace through Justice that verify the earlier and ongoing works of the Institute. Jzsj (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        A plain listing verifies nothing... The Banner talk 14:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Since I am currently banned from editing school articles, we can only hope that some kind soul comes along and introduces to the article a selection from these abundant newspaper sources . Jzsj (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G11. I really wish the article creator, user Jzsj, would learn what a reliable source is. Ten of the twelve references in this article are self-published by Loyola University New Orleans. This article never should have been written or published, as it provides next to no evidence that the subject is notable. It is just promotion.96.127.243.251 (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Must you ignore all the newspaper sources, a selection of which are listed above? Jzsj (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you have given is just a listing of articles with a specific text in it. The Banner talk 02:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you check them you will see they contain a variety of texts. Jzsj (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot check them as I do not have access to Newspapers.com. The other ones you mentioned that are not behind that paywall are either peripheral to the subject (biographies of founder), pubished on sketchy platforms (a farmer's market blog?) or minor passing mentions. As you continually and fundamentally misunderstand the concept of reliable sources, notability, coi and promotion, I am happy to take the Banner's word for it that they are just passing mentions and not good sources. The Banner has an excellent grip on the notability standards we employ here, as well as the standards for sources, so his opinion here carries weight. It appears this discussion is moot as the article has been speedy deleted.96.127.243.251 (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article seems to have been deleted. GenuineArt (talk) 06:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Emeritus ⋅ List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Emeritus. Randykitty (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel L. Johnson[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to a few fleeting passing mentions and name checks. The article is entirely reliant on primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. Furthermore, per: WP:SPIP:

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Seventy (LDS Church). There is no exception to Wikipedia policy for LDS church leaders, and proposals to exempt LDS leaders from the WP:GNG have consistently failed to achieve consensus support (see examples in 2014, 2016, and 2017). The sources in the article are not independent per WP:IIS and therefore not usable for establishing notability. Johnson's non-LDS career was in business, with General Mills, Inc., Citibank, Continental Grain Company, and Elamex, among others, so he shows up in, for example, older SEC filings [14]. Search of databases also finds some passing mentions in coverage of tragic incident involving a family member, brief quotes in a few Deseret News articles involving church efforts in Mexico and a ceremony honoring LDS volunteer service to the USS Missouri, and a short bio in the Deseret News on the occasion of his "release" [15]. This is all routine or superficial coverage, and does not constitute in-depth coverage of subject in multiple, secondary, independent, reliable sources, so right now it doesn't look like subject passes WP:GNG. Redirecting to Seventy (LDS Church) is a sensible alternative to deletion. Open to reconsideration if in-depth coverage emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Emeritus where he is mentioned. Regards So Why 15:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 15:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Buckley[edit]

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

Page was previously deleted 10 years ago. Nothing has changed since then–he is still a failed U.S. Senate nominee. Does not pass WP:NPOL nor WP:N. Of the few independent sources on the article, all relate to the U.S. Senate candidacy. Redditaddict6 9 08:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 08:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 08:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected candidates are not notable for such, and nothing else suggests notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to United States Senate election in North Dakota, 1994. Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Clayburgh[edit]

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

Failed candidate for U.S. Senate and father of a tax commissioner. Passes no notability guidelines–no independent sources outside of the failed campaign. Redditaddict6 9 07:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 07:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 07:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected candidates are normally not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to United States Senate election in North Dakota, 1994. Non-notable outside his senate run but possible search term. Regards So Why 15:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone wants to create a redirect if one of the films is kept, be my guest. So Why 15:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Penney[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NBIO notability. Found little to no third party references about the person. Neither the English or the French Wikipedia articles listed any references. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article seem to be recreated on August 22, 2015, following the deletion vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Penney on Janunary 14, 2006 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFD for film maker:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Penney (3rd nomination)

AFD of his films:

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:50, 9 August 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 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep ~~I'd like to vote otherwise,~~ since he has produced a body of work that has screened at many international film festivals, ~~but independent media coverage seems to be entirely lacking.~~ Changed opinion as per E.M.Gregory below. With at least one review in a national newspaper (The National Post), I suspect there are additional reviews that can be found. Curiocurio (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. We would expect more reliable media coverage since this was a recreation. GenuineArt (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wow, I didn't think we had any more unsourced BLPs after all these years. I realize that this 2005 piece is grandfathered under the old rules, but if people can't be arsed to add a single source in 13 years, I reckon we're well in the realm of non-notability under our GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ WP:HEY I added a pair of reviews innational papers. Note also that he co-wrote Coldwater (film) (it had not been on his page), and his early film The Right Way (2004 film) was the professional debut of Keir Gilchrist and got full-length reviews in Canada's two leading national daily newspapers. There is enough here to meet WP:CREATIVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Curiocurio, I have added film reviews, and a profile in a local paper, feel free to add material about film festival screenings.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete – It was deleted 10 years ago in the 1st nomination and there was no reason for it to be kept in the 2nd nomination if the only new films he created aren't notable and are currently nominated for deletion. Redditaddict6 9 10:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
so , there are 2 filmmakers named Mark Penney, about the same age, both Canadian. and this one did not create Coldwater (film).E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or possibly redirect, this bio to the only film of some significance Penny created, The Right Way (2004 film).E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone wants to create an article for the LewisGale Regional Health System (@Tingrin87), I'll be happy to provide a copy of the article for merging but until a merge target exists, nothing can be merged. So Why 15:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LewisGale Medical Center[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. History only lists a vague founding date, and that 5 people were treated there after the VT shooting. -TG 19:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete possibly create an article for the LewisGale Regional Health System to include entries on LewisGale Hospital Montgomery, LewisGale Hospital Alleghany, LewisGale Hospital Pulaski -TG 21:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 15:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

R. Bhuvan Chandra[edit]

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

Actor who has had one major role in a very minor film - does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Probably conflict of interest issues as well, and it looks like much of the article was copied from his own website (but it is not a straightforward copyvio speedy deletion, I think). bonadea contributions talk 06:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 06:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 06:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article looks like a puff piece. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON at best. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete The article can stay. I have added additional sources and it can be improved further. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Sharkslayer87, the current article doesn't actually say why the subject is notable. Please expand with some reliable sources. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for working on the article, Sharkslayer87. One of the sources you added was the subject's own website, and that can never count towards showing notability. The other source merely confirms that he was in the movie Kidi; that information was already in the article, and again one major role in a film does not make an actor meet WP:NACTOR. (The source itself is a trivial mention in an article about another topic, namely the movie). --bonadea contributions talk 07:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Accesscrawl,@Bonadea I undestand now. As it doesn't meet the notability criteria, I vote for its deletion. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lindström (company)[edit]

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

The article fails to show notability and contains content that is written like an advertisement. It also only relies on primary sources. Abequinn14 (talk) 06:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A primary-sourced WP:SPA article on a company. (If this survives AfD, the article should probably be retitled Lindström Group.) Some sources can be found which help verify its operating scope (e.g. GoodNews from Finland, 2016, The Hindu, 2017) but I am not seeing anything which rises above the routine to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like a fairly large family-held company, and I could find the following coverage:
- Yorkshire Post: Here it has been described as "a large, very successful, family-owned company, which is a leading player in the European textile rental market". Even if the description comes from what would be a subsidiary, and therefore might fail WP: ORGIND, this characterization needs to be considered.
- This and this about presence in the UK.
- This, this, and this about presence in India. These, being mainstream Indian publications, should be seen as evidence that the company meets WP: CORPDEPTH. Shobhit102 | talk 06:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:TNT; 100% promotional to the point of being G11 eligible. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily notable, top 10 oldest Finnish companies still active, operates in 24 countries. One of the largest newspapers in the Nordic countries, Helsingin Sanomat, for example has made an article on the company's history in 2017: [16]. Improvement is preferential to deletion. --Pudeo (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tito Perdue[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable author/white supremacist. Scaleshombre (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article was nominated for deletion (AfD) not even two months ago and the result was "keep". Not sure how anything would have changed between now and then, but notability is not temporary in any case. Tillerh11 (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And WP:TROUT Nom for ignoring that AfD. I came upon this one going though the AUTHORS AfD; The discussion looked like a slam dunk delte. Nevertheless, I did as I usually do with authors and ran him through a proquest news archive search (I find starting with the search more efficient than startin by reading all the comments; which often look different after I've seen what comes up in a search,) and... WOW! His books were extremely widely reviewed. That was when I noticed User:Tillerh11's comment and the recent AfD. As editors weighing in there stated, the reviews are dispositive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - such a rapid AfD re-submission somewhat ridiculous. At the risk of nicking the previous arguments, LA Review 1, LA Review 2. A quick hunt will bring up others if you want a second intellectually independent source. In any case I feel a speedy close is justified given the circumstances. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kaiju Big Battel. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^talk 03:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Call-Me-Kevin[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, I found only one (trivial) mention in a WP:RS, the rest is blogs, flickr and similar (and of course the usual items published by the organization). I suggest a redirect to Kaiju Big Battel. Sjö (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, as suggested by nominator, not notable for a standalone article. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 15:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Windeagle[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Appears five times according to Marvel Wikia; and is only linked by two articles, both of which are lists. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: W. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not discussed by secondary sources and not notable within the fiction. The lack of inline links shows that nothing would be lost by deleting this. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear failure of WP:GNG, no reliable secondary sources discussing this character provided or located. --Killer Moff (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Argento Surfer. Aoba47 (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Black Panther (comics). Randykitty (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

King Solomon's Frogs[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Fantastic Four or else merge with Jack Kirby. Vorbee (talk) 08:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: K. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not discussed by secondary sources, not notable within the fiction. The suggested merge targets aren't valid. The subject is an artifact, so it shouldn't be on a character list. They belong to Black Panther, not the Fantastic Four. Jack Kirby is a GA-class article about a creator. It shouldn't be bloated with his insignificant creations. Black Panther (comics) already mentions them inline, but I believe it already provides adequate context. Nothing needs to be merged, and a redirect seems useless since anyone knowledgeable enough to search for it would be aware of Black Panther. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear failure of WP:GNG, no reliable secondary sources provided, nor located. --Killer Moff (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given the above commentary. Aoba47 (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Black Panther (comics) where they are mentioned per WP:ATD-R. Redirects are cheap and one does not have to find them useful personally to keep them. Regards So Why 15:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Spider-Girl#Supporting cast. So Why 15:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Lu[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Character appears 24 times according to Marvel Wikia and the page is linked by six articles, one of which is disambiguation and two of which are lists. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: L. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spider-Girl, which has a brief entry for her. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not every character and group that has appeared needs to be mentioned in a list here, and certainly not in it's own article. Clear failure of WP:GNG. --Killer Moff (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spider-Girl. Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. Jbh ^Talk 00:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn; I see now that politicians at this level are generally presumed notable, according to the criteria set forth in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians_and_judges. I am therefore withdrawing this nomination. (non-admin closure) MBlaze Lightning ^talk 14:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagwan Shankar Rawat[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:GNG. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 06:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Member of parliament is notability. Redditaddict6 9 07:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per above. Ashok (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Lok Sabha is the lower house of India's national parliament. Its members are automatically notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I suppose I could have closed this as Keep, but the fact that the newly added sources didn't get any specific review (and they're behind a paywall, so I couldn't look at them myself), and the minimal discussion in general, makes it hard for me to call this a real consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Thompson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable author, fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Not cited by peers, did not originate a significant new concept, and there's no works, articles, or reliably-sourced reviews based on his books that I can find. The link padding in the article is a YouTube video, his personal website, the website of the Little Baddow History Centre which he personally administers, and some refs that simply list the books he's written. None of his work has been discussed in any reliable secondary sources that I can find. Article may be a mix of WP:PROMOTIONAL and WP:COI but that's just a guess on my part. Amsgearing (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 12:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article does need cleanup/improvement. I did nothing more than add 4 or 5 reviews in major, general-circulation periodicals to one of his books, Philosophers Behaving Badly (2005). He passes WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies AUTHOR with multiple periodical book reviews. James500 (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 14:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wildstreak[edit]

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

Character does not meet WP:GNG. Appears eight times according to Marvel Wikia and is linked by two articles, both lists. Not notable enough to merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: W. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: W. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails my criteria for merging to a list. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every character and group that has appeared needs to be mentioned in a list here, and certainly not in it's own article. Clear failure of GNG. --Killer Moff (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. AmericanAir88 (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 14:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global Village Space (Pakistan)[edit]

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

This online news website fails to meet WP's notability criteria on newspapers and also fails to meet basic GNG. Never produced award winning work and no significant history either. Saqib (talk) 05:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Only "references" are the main website and social media pages, and I can't find any independent, reliable coverage of the subject. Between this and the advert-like tone of the article, it appears simply to be a promotional article. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only sourced to non-WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Well I feel there was an excellent case of Pile-On consensus that there was sufficient non-candidate coverage to satisfy GNG in a myriad of sources. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Hallquist[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN as a political candidate not (yet) elected. St Anselm (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:POLITICIAN states: "… an unelected candidate for political office … can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.'" As shown by references in BLP to The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Boston Globe, Christine Hallquist meets that criterion. KalHolmann (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the articles in the Washington Post, New York Times, and Boston Globe establish WP:GNG, and hence justify the article with no need to justify WP:NPOLITICIAN. I've checked in the UK and find coverage in The Guardian, The Independent, and BBC news on her. I think this is a case where WP:BEFORE should have been applied more robustly. Ross-c (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge with Vermont gubernatorial election, 2018~~ Keep Changed vote per all comments added before and after mine. Redditaddict6 9 ~~09:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)~~ 13:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated earlier, he general coverage for her in the news has been far more substantial than other gubernatorial primary winners, and a cursory reading of many of these articles establishes an argument for notability in accordance with WP:GNG.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG and does not fall under criteria 2 and 3 of WP:BLP1E (she is currently not a low profile individual, the event and her role in it is well documented.) Rab V (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Its not about WP:POLITICIAN as she passes WP:GNG. Probably passed GNG even before the nomination, given her gender transition while CEO, and the subsequent film.--Theredproject (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Maybe most unelected candidates aren't notable, but there are exceptions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Also, trans visibility. I believe that Hellquist is the first openly trans candidate to be voted into office in the US. RachelWex (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RachelWex:: Christine Hallquist has not been voted into office. The 2018 Vermont gubernatorial election will take place on November 6, 2018. In January 2018, Danica Roem became the first openly transgender person to both be elected and serve in any U.S. state legislature. KalHolmann (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When I put this article together I was pretty sure she met WP:GNG. She's not just notable for the election results, they just tipped the scale, she's also been the subject of an award-winning film, and digging her company out of bankruptcy (both of which are in this article). So, I don't think WP:BLP1E applies. I specifically started this article because her name was redirecting to Vermont gubernatorial election, 2018 and I thought there was a basis for a full article. Jessamyn (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV in these media sources with national or international circulation:

The London Times: "Christine Hallquist becomes first trans person to run for US governor"
The Independent: "Vermont primary: Christine Hallquist becomes first transgender candidate to win governor nomination for major party"
The Sydney Morning Herald: "US primaries: Democrat Christine Hallquist becomes first US transgender nominee for governor"
Berliner Morgenpost: "Transgender-Kandidatin Christine Hallquist tritt bei US-Gouverneurswahlen an"
Der Tagesspiegel: "Christine Hallquist als Kandidatin: Erste trans Frau kandidiert bei Gouverneurswahlen in den USA"
The Globe and Mail: "Transgender candidate Christine Hallquist wins Vermont governor’s primary"
Le Journal de Montreal: "Christine Hallquist pourrait devenir la première femme transgenre à devenir gouverneure"
The Week: "With her win, Vermont's Democratic nominee for governor Christine Hallquist made history"
Mother Jones: "Christine Hallquist Just Became the First Transgender Nominee for Governor From a Major Party"
Rolling Stone: "Christine Hallquist Becomes First Trans Candidate to Win Major Party Nomination for Governor"
New York Magazine's Daily Intelligencer: "Christine Hallquist Could Be First Transgender Governor"
National Review: "Christine Hallquist: ‘Historic’ Transgender Gubernatorial Nominee Should Give Us Pause"
Elle: "How a Group of Muslim Girls Inspired Christine Hallquist to Run for Governor"
The New Yorker: "Christine Hallquist’s Vermont Win and the Emergence of Transgender Politicians"
Vox: "Vermont primary results 2018: Christine Hallquist could become the first transgender governor"

WP:BLP1E no longer applies for this person. She is no longer a low-profile individual. She has given several television and print media interviews. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep per above. Hallquist has attained significant coverage. The nominator claims that the article should be deleted due to WP:NPOL, but if they'd actually read WP:NPOL, they'd know that this article should be kept. Davey2116 (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage above. First trans person to run for governor, even if Hallquist loses, is significant. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The usual outcome for a candidate for elected office is a redirect to the appropriate election page, usually because all the coverage of the subject is within the context of one event WP:BLP1E. However, there are a certain number of exceptions that exist to the usual outcome. In this case, there is significant international coverage of her campaign, as well as feature length articles and other media about the subject's transition. (As an aside, the article in its present form does not over-emphasize the subject's run for governor and focuses on her professional career). --Enos733 (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant media coverage around the world to satisfy WP:GNG, an important article of significance to Transgender History in the United States. Digestive Biscuit (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep stong coverage by lots of mainstream media.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 06:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Former CEO of an electric cooperative. To my mind, that would make her notable in any event. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 23:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Why is this even a question? Whoisjohngalt (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liam McEwan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Self promotional article. Previous nomination resulted in a redirect but the target of that redirect was itself redirected. Subject has reconstituted this article and continues to edit under multiple IPs. Still no indication of passing GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per the original nomination. Delete Liam has the potential to pass WP:GNG, but at this stage it looks like WP:TOOSOON. If his career develops as it looks like it has the potential to do then he will most likely deserve his own article. NealeFamily (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be merged to The Flea 88.2 as that is now redirect to Devonport, and an IP which I strongly suspect of being Liam, says he has no affiliation with Devonport. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Delete with nothing to merge into now Flea has been re-directed, the article doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT and reads as a WP:PROMO. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 18:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Made his professional debut today against De Graafschap (non-admin closure) JMHamo (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arijanet Muric[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userify Slightly WP:TOOSOON and a poorly sourced BLP at the moment - we will see if he features on Sunday, since he could debut very shortly. SportingFlyer talk 06:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Can be restored if/when he is notable. Giant Snowman 10:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Dutch league has just started, if his makes he debut, keep under WP:NFOOTBALL, however till then he should be in draft space. Govvy (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFOOTY. Meets the professional standard. WP:GNG as well, but the professional standard is even more convincing. gidonb (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Gidonb, You've been around long enough to understand these Notability guidelines, you're keep argument is floored. Govvy (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Govvy: WP:NFOOTY applies in 7 days. The GNG applies right now. Can't tell if it is my WP longevity but I do miss the point of this nomination! ;-) gidonb (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep player now passes WP:NFOOTY, having played a professional match after the launch of this AFD. OZOO (t) (c) 18:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WZUN (AM)[edit]

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

No sources (that are not passing mentions) to prove notability - as such, fails WP:NRADIO. Kirbanzo (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If it originates at least some of its programming, or did at some point in the past, it is notable and should be kept. If it has only even been a simulcast, then it is not notable and should be deleted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FCC-licensed AM station, easily meets WP:BCASTOUTCOMES, simulcast or not (that only applies to translator stations). Nate • (chatter) 20:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Easily meets NMEDIA (NRADIO, same thing) and BCASTOUTCOMES. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:42 on August 17, 2018 (UTC)
Keep: I've expanded the article a bit, adding some more sources. (One of them is a 1995 newspaper article from when the station was in bankruptcy and off the air amidst a dispute between the then-owners about who the signal was intended to reach, which is probably more than a "passing mention".) From what I can tell, the station definitely originated its own programming in at least its first thirteen or so years on the air, even if it has in later years largely either simulcast FM stations or carried predominantly network programming. As long as a station has a history of doing its own programming and there are sufficient sources to verify this, there is a presumption of notability for licensed broadcast stations. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to WZUN-FM's Facebook (thanks persistent cookies for dragging it onto my feed! 😐) this station is now simulcasting that station (at least going by the mention of the Fulton translator, but it certainly couldn't have ESPND on the AM and WZUN on the FM per translator regulations), so further updates may be needed. Nate • (chatter) 15:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BROADCAST. James500 (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. So Why 14:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ayaan Zubair Rahmani[edit]

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

Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. WP:TOOSOON reddogsix (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not the kind of significant roles that would suggest notability. No good sources yet covering his career. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant roles needed for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Western Ontario#Media. So Why 14:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UWO Gazette[edit]

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

While it exists, currently sourced by mostly by primary or non-independent sources. Searches turned up not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes wp:gng. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The references are almost certainly out there for a long-established student newspaper at a leading Canadian university. I suggest looking for references within published histories of the university and within published histories of journalism and student activism in Canada. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Redirect to University of Western Ontario, unless substantial substantive coverage can be found. Unlike Eastmain, I do not hold out much hope for "published histories of the university' as Talman is already cited and hardly constitutes substantive coverage. Similarly, articles about "student activism" seldom have substantive coverage of student newspapers. Given the state of coverage, the UWO Gazette is not independently notable under the WP:GNG, and Wikipedia coverage should be limited to a sentence or two in the University of Western Ontario article. --Bejnar (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand that one thing is not necessarily notable just because WP:OSE, but this is not substantially different from the other articles about Canadian university newspapers. There are independent sources. It could use some editing (I am not disputing that it currently contains some irrelevant fluff), but deleting it entirely is unnecessary and even redirecting it seems a bit extreme. (I feel like I should note that I have nothing to do with the Gazette, aside from nostalgia for the comics and puzzles.) Adam Bishop (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Bishop: "Other stuff exists" is not really a good argument for keeping an article. See, for example, WP:OTHERCONTENT. Each article should stand or fall on its own merits. It is theoretically possible that no Canadian university newspaper is sufficiently notable. In general college papers aren't. --Bejnar (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to University of Western Ontario § Media, which only has a passing mention. This will improve the merge target article. See also: WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by admin Rehman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Reason: WP:A3. (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stub article[edit]

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

Unencyclopediac mainspace topic/navel-gazing DMacks (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tagged with speedy delete --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Affle[edit]

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

A remarkable number of references, but every single one of them is a mere announcement or a press release. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

- Response: The article was created because Affle is an important entity in the marketing and advertising industry. Platforms like SMS2.0 were important innovations that changed the mobile marketing industry. I also dispute that all references are merely announcement or press releases with trusted 3rd party information platforms like Owler and impartial national news sources (in India) like Business Standard, Economic Times etc. being in the references as well. Government newspieces (Singapore) like OpenGovAsia are also referenced. That being said, I am actively looking to improve the article with 3rd party, notable and relevant references.

It is for these reasons, I respectfully implore that the article for business entity Affle should not be deleted. Cleaning it, and adding more references would make it a valuable knowledge source for anyone looking to follow the development of the mobile marketing industry over the years. Bhatnagar.S (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The compny is a tech company being funded by Big names like Microsoft and Bennet, Coleman & Company limited. which lends the credibility. The article keeps you updated on advertising platforms that are availableand hence should nobe deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhumita Banerjee (talk • contribs) 09:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC) — Madhumita Banerjee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. I looked at all 104 citations, and concur with nom's analysis. I did not see a single independent in-depth WP:RS source. A classic case of WP:REFBOMBING. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Narky Blert (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Response: Various changes were made to reduce redundant references. Requesting you to re-visit the article for this. I also intend to continue improving the article further with more notable references.

Delete per Narky Blert above and a violation of WP:COIEDIT. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Response: I also respectfully deny that this article is in violation of WP:COIEDIT. All the information in the article is as it is present on the internet, without bias, as with notable references (perhaps notable in a country or in an industry - but notable). I have written the entire article on my own, and I seek a chance to improve its quality.

Delete - even the single keep !vote shows how the article is written as a promotional piece. Perhaps paid editing at work? Hmmm... Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Response: I have received absolutely no compensation to write this Article. I write articles about companies operating in the Singapore market. My previous article was about business entity Kestone, which recently got deleted (after staying published for over an year). I have been a wikipedia editor for over an year as well. Initially I was making changes to other articles, fixing their language and grammar. Eventually, I moved on to trying to publish my own article.

My! that certainly looks possible. Unless I'm badly mistaken, User:Madhumita Banerjee (mentioned above) is a sock of User:Bhatnagar.S. Two SPAs, both working on the one article. Narky Blert (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Response: I respectfully deny your claim that User:Madhumita Banerjee is a 'Sock'. We have had no contact either on Wikipedia or outside before this comment was made on this discussion.

Speedy delete as blatant promotion.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Response: Please allow me to improve the article so it does not comes across promotion. I earnestly believe that business entity Affle should have an article given their contributions to the mobile marketing industry.

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

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

The result was redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#General Authority Seventies. Randykitty (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Montoya[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to passing mentions. The article is supported by primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough sources independent of the LDS church. p b p 13:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep General authorities are of a level in the Church structure that they are presumed notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith question from a newer editor: where is the consensus guideline that religious organization members are exempt from WP:GNG (or fall under alternative notability criteria similar to WP:NPOL or WP:PROF)? Bakazaka (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General authorities are not presumed notable per any of Wikipedia's guidelines or policies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Furthermore, a previous discussion on the Notability (people) talk page in 2016, located here, regarding the notion of LDS church and other religious organization leaders being granted presumed notability on Wikipedia was widely opposed, with a consensus to not add a stipulation regarding said presumption of notability to the guideline page. Sorry, but the !vote above is rooted entirely in personal opinion, not Wikipedia guidelines or policies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – There's no guideline page on English Wikipedia stating that any religious subjects are presumed notable. A section of the Common outcomes page, which is not a guideline or policy, but rather, an explanatory supplement, is located at WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES, which provides suggestions for some faiths, but not Mormonism. However, the Common outcomes page is not set in stone whatsoever, and simply exists to demonstrate some trends in Articles for deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. The part that seems most important in WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES is that becoming a clergy member does not automatically confer notability, but people who become clergy members often become notable because their post puts them in a position to become notable, and they then do something that is notable outside the religious group. It makes sense that a Catholic bishop who then gets involved in community boards or local governance, for example, is likely to get coverage for it outside the church. But it is also clear that the notability guidelines could put some religious groups at a disadvantage in Wikipedia if their clergy are not put in a position to get coverage outside the church. To me that suggests being especially diligent about including clergy or other religious members who pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines, rather than altering Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Bakazaka (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Search does not find multiple independent reliable secondary sources to support notability for subject. Subject's position is undoubtedly important within the church context, but that has not translated into significant coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG. Bakazaka (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Upon reflection, and in the interest of considering alternatives to deletion wherever possible, changing !vote to redirect this article to Seventy (LDS Church) makes sense. The subject's claim to notability is based on membership in that notable part of the church organization. The subject can't inherit notability from the organization, per WP:INHERITORG, and the subject otherwise fails WP:GNG or other possible notability requirements, but he could certainly be discussed in the Seventy (LDS Church) article if appropriate. Bakazaka (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#General Authority Seventies where he is mentioned. Regards So Why 14:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. So Why 14:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oasix[edit]

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

There doesn't appear to be much in the way of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources and those included in the article are questionable at best (and some patently unreliable.) A search brought up little else actually related to this person. I also searched under "အိုအေစစ်" which gave even fewer results. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Some of this article is not written in a very encyclopaedic style - it says "He got his big break in music industry". The only external link is link to Facebook. Vorbee (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mizzima (1) source is a strong one: independant, focused and coverage of him. And In press, mentioned his hit songs. Meet GNG and WP:artist, This one (2) Yangon Life burmese language source is showing about of his solo "1992" (၁၉၉၂) and his music career.Emily Khine (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He had released collaborative album "Pyaw San Par" (Say) with singer Y-zet, and his solo 1992 is already released audio album, DVD album will be released on December. which meet GNG and itself establish sufficient notability per WP:MUSICBIO. The Irrawaddy sources says "He is one of popular artist in country". Ah Poe (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yet this is contradicted by the utter lack of coverage to support such a statement. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is writing in burmese language, But seen coverage Emily Khine (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It could be written in Klingon, one source stating he's popular is meaningless when there is no actual in depth coverage to support it. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I concur with nominator, the lack of comprehensive coverage in reliable sources means this fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. In addition, there's too many dead links here. Waggie (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cmt I doesn't seen dead link sources????? Emily Khine (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Mizzima [17] . It is one of the most popular media in Myanmar. It is enough to state he Oasix seem hip-hop artist in Myanmar. He published an album Pyaw San Par and (Burmese: ပြောစမ်းပါ)and 1992 is his solo.ခင်မောင်မောင်လွင် (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to A Song of Ice and Fire fandom. Giving the nod to merge instead of delete (the majority opinion), per WP:ATD. Note: don't merge the whole thing, selectively merge just a few key points. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ice and fire con[edit]

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

Not well-referenced, and I couldn't find better sources on google. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 17:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 17:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 17:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a few sentences in A Song of Ice and Fire#Fandom per minimum coverage in national websites - 2016 on Nerdist [18], 2017 on Daily Dot [19]. Insufficient coverage for its own article at this point - fansites are not acceptable but there should be a paragraph about all these fan conventions in the Fandom section. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added some additional links per I dream of horses' note - The page now includes links to independent coverage by NowThis News, Heavy, TheMarySue, and FanSided / Winteriscoming.net. The page is comparable to a number of other wiki pages for fan conventions. Eidolonic (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fansites like winteriscoming are not considered reliable sources for establishing notability. The Mary Sue also seems to lack notability as a source. It seems there are about three articles in what can be deemed reliable sources - that's insufficient for an annual event going on five years. There is a serious lack of coverage here but as one of many Game of Thrones fan conventions can be mentioned in the Fire & Ice article's section on fandom. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notable Ghits. Couldn't find any reliable sources either. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to A Song of Ice and Fire fandom. There are a couple sources, but not enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bajadera[edit]

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

A product which apparently does not satisfy WP:GNG, and no claims of notability are provided. A single non-primary source is used for a long promotional quote. A merge to Kraš would also be a valid option (attempted in the past, but reverted). GregorB (talk) 08:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on notability grounds, but clean up from promotional language. It has been consistently included in the lists of most renowned Croatian brands, such as:
- Books:
- Marat Terterov; Visjna Bojanic (July 2005). Doing Business with Croatia. GMB Publishing Ltd. p. 129. ISBN 978-1-905050-53-6.
- Božo Skoko (2004). Hrvatska: identitet, image i promocija. Školska knjiga. p. 202. ISBN 978-953-0-61430-7.
- Dino Bauk; Valter Cvijić; Ildiko Erdei (2 October 2017). Made in YU 2015 (in Slovenian). Založba ZRC. p. 18. ISBN 978-961-254-876-6.
- News:
- Frenki Laušić (22 March 2015). "Kalodont, Digitron, Vegeta, Bajadera... Koje su sve domaće marke preživjele napad sa Zapada?". Jutarnji List.
- "10 najpoznatijih Kraševih proizvoda". Poslovni dnevnik. 13 October 2014.
- "Naše nove čokolade napravile su toliki bum da radimo non-stop u četiri smjene". Večernji list. 28 January 2016.
- "Bajadera i Andrea Bocelli – jedinstven spoj okusa i glazbe". Večernji list.
- "Priče o uspjehu najmoćnijih hrvatskih brendova". Poslovni dnevnik. 9 June 2018.
- "Ovo su proizvodi bez kojih Hrvati ne mogu ni danas". Večernji list. 7 September 2015.
- "Za Bajadere čak uzgajaju i bademe". Večernji list. 27 August 2015.
- Featured even in a novel: Christian Schünemann; Jelena Volic (15 February 2016). Cornflower Blue: A Case for Milena Lukin. Haus Publishing. p. 165. ISBN 978-1-908323-97-2.
- Home cookbook recipe based on the original product: Liliana Pavicic; Gordana Pirker-Mosher (2007). Best of Croatian Cooking. Hippocrene Books. p. 229. ISBN 978-0-7818-1203-0.. Heck, homemade bajaderas are a household recipe across the ex-Yu.

While it's not always easy to separate PR from journalism, I think that the coverage in totality demonstrates notability of the product. No such user (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully additional reviewers will have a look at the additional sources provided
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kraš along with all other Kraš products. I love Bajadera, but it is not notable as it gains no more than a brief mention in reliable sources. wumbolo ^^^ 17:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Luis Ruiz Suárez. Anything worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casa Ricci Social Services[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Is in fact a part of Caritas Macau with insufficient notability for a separate article. The Banner talk 12:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This recounts the history of Casa Ricci Social Services since the 1950s and its evolution that has been independent of Caritas Macau, which began only in 1971. The references show its own notability: "Today, CRSS currently runs 50 programs distributed in 13 provinces in China with 64 Leprosy centers for a total of 4,000 leprosy affected patients, five (5) HIV homes with a total of 40 children, 300 HIV+ mothers/adult, 200 adults at risk of affecting AIDS, and 1500 students from poor families". It antedated Caritas Macau whose services focus on metropolitan Macau, while CRSS serves all of China and beyond, with help from the Ricci Social Service Foundation. Jzsj (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, the case here is sourcing. When you cut out the related sources and obits, more then half of the sources is gone. Then you are left with passing mentions and an address book. WP:RS please. The Banner talk 09:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where does Wikipedia say that obits, with considerable information on the subject in independent newspapers, cannot be used to verify what is said on the organization's website?

A careful check of the reference numbers reveals the following sources that are not "produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website" (WP:GNG).:

2 government record of charter giving nature of Ricci foundation

3 government stamp establishing the Jesuit presence in Macau social services in 1569

8 travel guide produced by a source independent of Fr. Lu, giving his history in brief

9 diocesan newspaper reporting on an anniversary of Fr. Lu's work

10 magazine of the Chinese Jesuits, reporting on the international connections of the leprosy work of Casa Ricci Social Service

11 reproduction of Fr. Lu's obit in the Sunday Examiner

12 obit of Fr. Lu in the Macau Daily Times

13 Catholic News Philippines report reflecting on Fr. Lu's work with refugees

14 long report at Fr. Lu's death, in the Asian Catholic News Service, including input from readers

1 and 4 give credible accounts of the work of Casa Ricci on its website, largely substantiated above

5,6,7 give an extensive historical account of Fr. Lu's work on the Caritas website Jzsj (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is enough coverage including information from obituaries which is permitted for a pass of WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although there are two keep votes and no supporting deletion beyond the OP's, I am concerned that too many of the sources cited by the principle Keep advocate are related to the subject. Therefore I am re-opening the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – for now at least – to Caritas Macau, which according to this source is what this now is ("... the Ricci Centre for Social Services, now the Macau branch of Caritas ..."); we surely do not need two articles on the same institution, particularly if one of them is as poorly sourced as this one. Whether Caritas Macau is notable by our standards remains to be seen; Luis Ruiz Suárez most certainly is – the obituaries, are, not surprisingly, almost entirely about him rather than any organisation he founded, and it may be that the article about him would provide better overall coverage of this topic. I don't read Chinese, but of the two obituaries that I can read, the Macau Daily Times has only the passing mention of this institution already quoted above, while the CathNews Philippines source has only a photo credit; that's far short of the level of in-depth coverage required by WP:NCORP. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Luis Ruiz Suárez.My views entirely align with JLN, except that I am not sure about the notability of Caritas Macau, either whereas LRS is definitely notable.∯WBG^converse 07:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment plus, Caritas Macau is a totally separate thing. This article is Suárez's work so it should be merged or redirected there. Redditaddict6 9 11:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Luis Ruiz Suárez per User:Winged Blades of Godric. Information is valuable but not enough to retain its status as a separate article. Redditaddict6 9 11:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SlifkerGames[edit]

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

No indication of notability. The only sources cited are the article subject's official website and Facebook, and I can't find any news articles about the subject whatsoever. Aspening (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom. --Izno (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 01:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Kirbanzo (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO, maybe borderline G11. Essentially a brochure for a company's apps. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since nomination, there are now a lot of WP:REFBOMBS, but these seem like mostly routine primary listings or similar. Primary sources are not usable for notability. Worse, there is nothing explaining why this company is noteworthy. The closest thing is the Otronicon award, but that doesn't appear to have been recognized as significant by any reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero indications of notabilty, reads more like a vanity piece for the CEO. Fails GNG and NCORP, no references can be found. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The move proposed by Bennv3771 may boldly proceed, but there is no definite consensus for or against the move. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 09:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Santana Srinivasa Temple[edit]

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

Only one source, seems to fail WP:NGEO. Complete orphan as well, although that's not really deletion-requiring. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage can be found: 1, 2, 3, and many more if you search in Tamil sources like 4. But per those sources, it needs to be moved to "Sri Santhana Srinivasa Perumal Temple". As for it being orphaned, Mogappair does mention the Sri Santhana Srinivasa Perumal Temple so it can be linked from there once the article title is fixed. Bennv3771 (talk) 04:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep tons of sources in both English and Tamil and it is a very famous temple Abote2 (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, no longer orphaned, nor underlinked, and have removed the tags (couldn't resist:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.facebook.com/search/str/%23GrecoLIVE/keywords_blended_videos

[2] ttps://www.forbes.com/sites/brianmazique/2018/08/20/one-championship-and-ufc-represent-global-duopoly-in-martial-arts/#772cff5843d4

[1]

[1]