Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 August	25 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 keep. (Strictly speaking, Weak Keep) - there is a rough consensus with the sources listed that the subject just topples over GNG and N:MUSIC (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Carney[edit]

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

There does not seem to be significant coverage of this classical musician, and I don't think he meets WP:MUS. Tacyarg (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are a few more references which may mean that he passes WP:GNG. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would say he passes, and unlike Kate Musker, he didn't ask to have his article taken down. I did one for her, and she didn't like it. It took a few months to get WP to take it down. I led the charge because I made the article and didn't want it to be a problem for her. -Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did a google search on him, and while a good proportion of the articles are from the Baltimore Sun, but there are also articles in The Washington Post and other sources. It's only just past local interest, but I think there is enough there and the interest is at state level, not just (e.g.) a metropolitan area. WP:LOCALINT therefore isn't a problem.Ross-c (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I haven't found any references beyond the ones listed by Eastmain. It's borderline but I think the coverage is significant enough to meet GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Much as per Power~enwiki. The CultureSpotMC piece is indepth, the others are ... eh ... sufficient as a sum, I think. --GRuban (talk) 20:48, 29 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Devender Kadyan[edit]

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

Not meeting WP:NPOL. No significant coverage in reliable source that can help in asserting notability as per WP:GNG. Hitro talk 11:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more references fro Tribune news service, Navbharat times. Will keep on addiming very effective resouces. Many citations are in Hindi. What should I Do?--Mykanah (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Person looks notable after observing hindi rs. But still looks WP:TOOSOON. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Mykanah: Can you translate the titles of the sources you're adding in the article to English (alongside the original titles), and can you, here, point out say the three best, most indepth ones? The ones who write the most about him, instead of just mentioning him a bit while writing about other politics? Because I clicked a few, and they weren't very indepth, but maybe I just missed the best sources. --GRuban (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok giving https://www.jagran.com/haryana/sonipat-sonipat-haryana-17931416.html https://www.bhaskar.com/harayana/ganaur/news/HAR-OTH-MAT-latest-ganaur-news-021002-1384328-NOR.html https://www.thepeoplepost.com/news/national/youth-congress-gets-six-general-secretaries "Youth Congress gets six General Secretaries | The People Post" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mykanah (talk • contribs) 10:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, Mykanah, thanks for giving the links, but if those three are the best, that's not very indepth. He gets maybe one sentence each in them. --GRuban (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban, he is noted business man too in Her fans and also Big name as social worker I have big references from Tribune and Forbes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mykanah (talk • contribs) 10:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the Tribune article, then it is 5 sentences long, and about a march, not about him. I don't see the Forbes article, please link it, but I have to say, WP:GNG] usually requires multiple indepth articles about the subject, so it would have to be very impressive. --GRuban (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Run of the mill budding politician has not won any election, or held any notable post. He is one of 6 new general secretary of Indian Youth Congress, which is not a notable post anyway according to Wikipedia standards. GRuban Accesscrawl the coverage he has is far less than what is expected of a businessman budding politician. Once and "if" he wins the 2019 Lok Sabha election, we can add his BIO, but that will be in WP:FUTURE and not now. For now Delete it. I am open to userfying this to the author User:Mykanah with the condition that he should not move it back to the article space until he becomes an MP. --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indepth coverage is unavailable. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON], fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:50, 31 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 Malmesbury#Education. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malmesbury Church of England School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. (The music academy mentioned, which takes older children, seems to be Saturday mornings only.) Tacyarg (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blank and redirect (per policy) to its locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malmesbury#Education - All primary schools are redirected unless notability is shown which in this case there is none. –Davey2010^Talk 01:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - can't find indepth independent sources. --GRuban (talk) 21:00, 29 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. No prejudice against anyone creating a redirect. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco J. Viñas[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 from the subject and name checks. 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 10:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 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]

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?} 23:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability for the subject. Doesn't seem to meet either WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find indepth independent sources. (In fact, even the LDS sources are fairly short.) --GRuban (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Emeritus. 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 or not WP:RS and therefore do not count toward establishing notability. Search does not find WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources, only passing mentions in church-related announcements and short quotes reprinted from official church sources. So the subject does not seem to pass 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#Emeritus, where information on the subject is already presented. Open to alternatives if in-depth coverage emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject lacks in-depth coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources as required by WP:GNG. MBlaze Lightning 03:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nobody except the nominator wanted to delete the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mahnaz Samadi[edit]

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

The subject was deported from Canada for 'suspicion of terrorism': which is not enough to meet basic notability requirements Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is a renowned international terrorist prosecuted in three countries, and has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, including Newsweek, The Washington Times, The Washington Post, The Globe and Mail, The Ottawa Citizen, The Daily Star, Associated Press, CBC News, United Press International, The National Post and Ms. Magazine, plus several books. Clearly meets Wikipedia:Notability. Pahlevun (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject is not "renowned", and did only receive limited coverage in Western press for being deported from Canada for allegedly been involved in an attack at the Iranian embassy in Canada, nothing else. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep longstanding article about a People's Mujahedin of Iran operative deported by Canada. Massive additions and deletions to article during this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Being deported doesn't suffice, but being a leader of a terrorist... er freedom fighter ... er whatever ... group with international coverage could. I'd be happier if some of the more indepth coverage were either more indepth or not all in connection to her 2000 deportation, though. --GRuban (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per E.M.Gregory and GRuban's input above, have you been able to verify how is she a leader of the MEK? The current leader of the group appears to be Maryam Rajavi, and Samadi is not even mentioned in the People's Mujahedin of Iran article, so I don't see how describing her as the leader of the group can be accurate. Additionally, the sources in the provided articles say that "She was responsible for directing some MEK operations from Iraq, suggesting that she was sent to the US and then to Canada, to act in an organizational capacity." Is being deported for suggesting that she was sent to the US and Canada to act in an organizational capacity enough to meet notability? (I tried to correct this in the article but keep getting reverted by Pahlevun). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"a" leader, not "the" leader. I am going by the "leader of North American operations" statement in the article, which seems to be cited to books, rather than online sources, so I haven't read them. Anyway, there isn't a "Wikipedia:Notability:Leader of ~~terrorist~~ group" guideline, so that isn't the key point, but there is WP:GNG, which she seems to meet. I can imagine the argument that all the indepth coverage was in the context of the one event of getting deported; but I do think she crosses it, since it's coverage of her "career", basically, even though it was prompted by the deportation event. --GRuban (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to GRuban's comment. I ought to have made clear that before opining "K" I ran a news archive search. It bought up multiple deep dives into her background and terror convictions by the big Canadian dailies, prompted by the arrest, but going into great detail and bringing statements from Iranian ex-pat organizations. I won't pretent to have untangled the ins and outs of Iranian politics and terrorism in that era. I am just stating that such material was published in WP:RS newspapers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory, could you please add a couple of references to the article outlining her terror convictions? The current references in the article only suggest she was involved in terror activity, but there is nothing about being convicted (which would help establish notability). Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:35, 31 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First Chinese Baptist Church of Virginia Beach[edit]

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

No reference to support the notability of this church. Mys_721tx (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I was able to find a couple of sources: [6] from The Virginian-Pilot is moderately long, but is a local source, while [7] Christian Broadcasting Network is a national source, but fairly short, and only covers the church as part of a series on a different one every week, it couldn't really be said to be indepth. Together, I don't think they're quite enough to meet WP:GNG. If someone can find a couple more, I'd be happy to change my opinion to Keep. --GRuban (talk) 21:26, 29 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jwalantham[edit]

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

Non-notable film, no significant coverage from independent reliable sources, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 01:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 01:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 01:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find indepth coverage; even the sources in the article don't seem to actually be about the movie. --GRuban (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFILM and lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only passing mentions in mainstream newspapers are kind of promotional in nature.--DBig Xrayᗙ 21:57, 29 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 Jay Gould (entrepreneur). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yashi[edit]

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

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Has been acquired for a fairly insignificant amount, as far as corp acquisitions go ($33M) so I don't believe it's worth a redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I would be fine with a redirect to Nexstar_Media_Group#2014–2017:_Other_events. Being such a low purchase price, one sentence is sufficient, IMO. Or anything worthwhile could be picked up from the article history. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 01:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 01:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Originally a commissioned article (listed at User:Renzoy16), subsequently edited by WP:SPA accounts. That the company appeared in fastest-growing and good-place-to-work lists is not inherently notable. I am seeing only routine announcement coverage, insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. (There is also some brief in-context coverage of the acquisition at Nexstar_Media_Group#2014–2017:_Other_events.) AllyD (talk) 07:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jay Gould (entrepreneur). There is plenty of coverage, but it's not very indepth, and what there is seems as much about Jay (and to a lesser degree Caitlin) Gould as about Yashi as such.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] So we should write about the company somewhere, but I can see the argument that we don't have enough for a standalone article. --GRuban (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Jay Gould (entrepreneur) in lieu of deletion per GRuban. Another merge target is Nexstar Media Group#2014–2017: Other events, where as AllyD noted, Yashi is already mentioned. Cunard (talk) 06:20, 30 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 Twiztid. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Majik Ninja Entertainment[edit]

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

Absolutely no indication this endeavor meets WP:NCORP. This is a record label, not a bio on a musician or a band. A record label is a business and as such the article must meet the applicable notability guideline. Also, very PROMO, with a considerable amount of either WP:UPE or WP:COI editing. John from Idegon (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 01:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 01:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Twiztid, who appear to be the founders and operators of the label. I haven't been able to find any significant independent coverage of the label in WP:RS. Faygoluvers.net, to which a substantial portion of the article is sourced, doesn't seem to be reliable. A good portion of the articles there are credited to "ScottieD", who is probably the same person as the Scott Donihoo listed on the advertising page, and other articles are credited under nicknames. Even then, coverage is kind of rudimentary ([16]). No opinion on whether to retain the article history. Daß Wölf 02:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some information with Twiztid#Formation_of_Majik_Ninja_Entertainment_(2014–2015) per User:Daß Wölf. Has plenty of independent sources, listed events, and results from a quick google search together help pass some notability guidelines. However, as per nom, it doesn't fully pass WP:NCORP. Best if merged to keep the independent sources and to take note that the label is somewhat notable. Redditaddict6 9 03:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Current merge/redirect/delete split
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as nominator, I'd be okay with a selective merge and redirect per above. Redditaddict69 mentions secondary sources, but I cannot see merging anything referenced to "faygolovers.com". John from Idegon (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Twiztid; not independently notable. Signifant RS coverage not found. Does not meet WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 28 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Il Firenze[edit]

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

Notability not established, no secondary sources, only source is the official site, article has no sourced content, the linked Italian wiki page is not about this publication, it is about the company that owned this paper and only contains one sentence about this paper as far as I can tell. ^†Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 04:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything on the paper as such, though there are a few one liners "Il Firenze says..." --GRuban (talk) 11:10, 30 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 List of Marvel Comics characters: T. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tangerine (comics)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. According to Marvel Wikia, the versions of this character appear four times in total. The page is linked by three articles, one of which is disambiguation and another of which is a list. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 04:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: T. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MI-13 (comics) - No coverage in RS and not notable within the fiction. The proposed target provides a minimum of information on the character. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: T. Remove the tagged paragraphs in the process. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:22, 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 Ben Roy. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grapes of Rad[edit]

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

Fails the general notability guideline. Initially tagged for speedy. SoWhy declined, citing this Huffington Post article. Taking a closer look, this article appears to be talking about a comedy show in Denver with the same name as the podcast. The best source I could find in later searches was this. Not enough to establish notability. Tera TIX 04:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC) SoWhy rightfully pointed out that the article could be redirected to Ben Roy, who worked on the Denver show. Tera TIX 12:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination Mccapra (talk) 08:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tera TIX 04:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: looking at the page history there appears to have been substantial conflict of interest editing. Tera TIX 04:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:22, 18 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) 02:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nom shifted to relist, so a current split redirect/delete. As Mccapra !voted "per nom" it would be helpful to confirm whether remaining delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentHi I don’t really follow the case for redirect here and don’t really see how it would help a reader much, so still prefer delete, but won’t die in a ditch over it.Mccapra (talk) 21:36, 27 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Student Police Cadet Project[edit]

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

Inappropriate overdetailed promotional article about police cadet program in one particular Indian state. The detail could of course be trimmed, but there would be insufficient content left for an article. The references are just the usual notices DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – I see a lot of coverage about what seems to be a rather important education system. The article needs trimming, but it needs to be kept as well. If the article isn't fixed and the promotional aspect isn't removed soon, I could see a deletion being possible. Redditaddict6 9 07:15, 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 06:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NORG with the coverage being routine and / or WP:SPIP. Promotional 'cruft; the content belongs on the org's web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject passes WP:SIGCOV due to mainstream newspapers. e.g. The Hindu [17] The page views also does not justify deletion [18]--DBig Xrayᗙ 21:43, 29 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) Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 14:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Ode[edit]

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

There is no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. PROD contested by the author, but nothing to show evidence of notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @GSS: I can't find CineQueer or Planet Homo. I wanted to see how deep these mentions were, and to see what sort of publication (e.g. blog or magazine (etc.) with editorial oversight) they are, but didn't find them. Are there links? I note that the film is mentioned as one among many Indian films that address homosexuality, which I consider an important topic, but specific articles about the film itself seem lacking. Where has the author of the article contested the prod? Ross-c (talk) 08:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Asia Pacific Arts and DNA sources cited in the article are enough to satisfy WP:GNG: they're reliable sources, independent of the subject, and contain significant coverage of the film. @Ross-c: I also wasn't able to find the source of the CineQueer quote, but the Planet Homo reference was to this blog post, an obviously unreliable source, so I've removed that part of the sentence. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The film was featured in a few gay-oriented film festivals and included as part of Indian gay film tradition. Also an adaptation of a famous book Ode to Lata, similarly notable on its own. werldwayd (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has coverage in reliable sources described above. Perhaps there could be information added about the book it is based on as that would help it's notability, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 12:50, 27 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xiamen Airlines Flight MF8667[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Not fatal incident where plane skids off runway are common. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - WP:NOTNEWS Acnetj (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Runway excursions are not that common, and in this case the plane suffered serious damage - an engine ripped off - as well as closing down the main runway in the airport for 36 hours.[19][20] Coverage is fairly wide for this recent event, so WP:RAPID is in play (and supports retaining the article). Seems to meet the WP:AIRCRASH essay in that this is serious damage to the aircraft. Also, per [21], it seems quite likely this will cause changes in Manila's airport which would meet a second bullet in AIRCRASH - The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports,....Icewhiz (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – A user has moved the article to Xiamen Airlines Flight 8667. – Wdchk (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very close call; the plane might end up as a hull loss. News coverage is widespread. The only difference between this one and the recent Aeromexico takeoff crash in Durango, is that this one did not catch fire. Just the luck of the draw; passengers were in great danger with that type of damage to the plane.EditorASC (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above comment, the incident also resulted in further discussions to improve NAIA by adding new runways or improving existing ones, or build a new airport outside Metro Manila to decongest or replace NAIA.--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 01:28, 30 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Radivision[edit]

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

The company est. in 2017 with just 10 employees (Angel.com) doesn't meet company notability guidelines. And very promotional. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. pure advertising from an editor moving his own contriutionds out of draft. No scope for improvement, because there is no notability either. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC) �[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Agree that it is purely advertising - the username of the author is remarkably similar to the name of a Radivision employee. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yep, totally promotional and doesn't meet WP:ORG. MutchyMan112 (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from being totally promotional, largely the sources are either about the founder, or just a business analysis. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP totally. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:42, 29 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) Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 14:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret World of Jeffree Star[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NFILM, WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. Has 1 source. » Shadowowl | talk 20:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The web series has been watched by 20 odd million people and been liked by 1.3m people. If that was a BBC series on here, it would automatically get a page. It is notable. scope_creep (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a search of Google news shows that it does meet WP:GNG. However, the article needs a lot of work - most importantly, it needs many additional references/citations, and it sounds as though it was written by a fan. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a simple Google search shows there is coverage on the show, but it does not to be rewritten from a more neutral POV. Aoba47 (talk) 01:34, 27 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) 19:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen Tower[edit]

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

Non-notable not existing building. » Shadowowl | talk 20:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. There isn't an approved guideline for accessing buildings notability (apart from failedWikipedia:Notability proposal (buildings, structures, and landmarks)), but it looks like an ordinary construction project (ConstructionNews.co.UK article is an example). There are no star architects behind it or some meaningful importance for the city.--Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbarmadillo: WP:NBUILD applies here, which it fails. » Shadowowl | talk 18:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadowowl: Thank for the correct link, totally agree.--Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:44, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MohenaSingh[edit]

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

Non-notable actor with unsourced claims. » Shadowowl | talk 20:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reality show is pretty much the only coverage here, and it's pretty thin gruel. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR. Supporting actress with Minor roles. Lack of WP:SIGCOV. Perhaps in future she ma become notable, but for now this is WP:TOOSOON--DBig Xrayᗙ 22:05, 29 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) Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 14:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The White Horse, Hertford[edit]

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

Nothing particularly notable about this pub TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Grade II listed buildings are generally regarded as notable per WP:GEOFEAT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, because as Redrose64 says, the pub is in a Grade II listed building. Though I can't find any reliable secondary sources about the pub business, partly because there is a much better known White Horse pub in a nearby village. Sionk (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More-or-less automatically notable per WP:NBUILD. And it is not as if there is COI or paid editing on behalf of the pub business itself. Edwardx (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A historic institution dating back over 400 years and so significantly older than the USA. Andrew D. (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Grade II listed building. James500 (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm neutral on whether the article should be deleted, but neither the article itself nor the cited source actually makes the claim that the pub itself is 400 years old, just that the buildings currently occupied by the pub are. In fact, the use of the wording "now public house" in the source somewhat implies the opposite of the claim made by several of the above keep !votes. It should also probably be noted that being "significantly older than the USA" is not an inclusion criterion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, WP:NOTINHERITED, this pub may occupy a couple of listed buildings but it does not in itself appear notable, it is just the latest occupant ie. started 1994?, other occupant history here?, so if this is kept at the very least it should be renamed to "33 to 35 Castle Street, Hertford, Hertfordshire" otherwise it is just here to promote the pub. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those other "occupants" are the landlords (people who run the pub). Philafrenzy (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Probably since around 1810" as a beerhouse (https://southherts.camra.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/POV232-Web-Version.pdf) although I'm not sure if that's reliable, and our article says beerhouses didn't exist then - but no later than the 1890s according to the occupant history link. What started in 1994 was Dark Horse Brewing, a microbrewery that was based at the pub for two years then moved to another location in the town, but the article is not about that. Whether it's called by the pub's name or the address depends on whether it is about the pub (numbers 31-33) for which it is the common name, or about the entire building (31-35). Grade II isn't always notable - all listed buildings are Grade II or above, and some Grade II* listed buildings probably don't meet requirements of the general notability guideline. Peter James (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:COMMONNAME, we should use "the name that is most commonly used". I doubt anyone locally calls it "33 to 35 Castle Street". Edwardx (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The pub is number 33, and the former number 31 is now part of it, but it looks like number 35 is still a house. Peter James (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NBUILD "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available are presumed to be notable." The Common Name is The White Horse, with Hertford as the disambiguator. I doubt this article is making any difference to their trade. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
so if i live in a listed house, there can be a wikiarticle named "Coola's house" as the common name. do these buildings' listings discuss their continuing usage as a pub/drinking establishment or is it just happenstance that that is their latest manifestation, also what of no. 35 that appears to be missing out because it isn't part of the white horse? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added 35 and created a redirect for it. I assume that English Heritage (as was) had the same problem when they had to decide what name to use in their listing and decided that the most practical solution was to go with the pub name. As for their choices, they normally go with the name at the time of listing and don't change even if the use of the building changes. In this case the building has had the same function for a very long time. So the answer to your question is that if the house is known as Coola's House when listed, it will be shown as such on the register. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yaay!, so all i need do is ensure the demolition of the 100s of other 1970s neo california bungalows in the area, apply to the heritage authorities, wait 3 or 4 years for it to be considered and listed .... Coolabahapple (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or if you were in the U.K., wait 500 years. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What we need is a photograph of the group of three buildings with an explanatory caption. Unfortunately nobody has taken one for Commons yet, I checked. Doesn't appear to be any historic ones either that I could find. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We could have meetup here, then everyone would take a photo and there'd be a mad scramble to upload them to Commons :-D Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea! But would we have a conflict of interest as patrons? Philafrenzy (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously, CAMRA's London Pubs Group emailed me about this a few days ago Daytime Crawl of Hertford, Saturday 8 September 2018. 7 pubs, all either GII or GII*. COIs could be avoided by bringing our own beer! Edwardx (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They will need hollow legs for that. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:34, 29 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 relist this, but I don't see any consensus emerging either way in another week. If somebody feels strongly that it should have been relisted, feel free to renominate. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Parkruns in the United States of America[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY Natureium (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sister article to this page List of Parkruns in the United Kingdom was in this sort of shape when it was nominated for deletion as a possible directory - and was kept, that one doesn't look like a directory now. This article just needs time and effort to bring it up to speed. Szzuk (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory, and this is nothing more than a directory. List of Parkruns in the United Kingdom is still just a directory, but with lots of trivial padding added. Its kid sister Draft:List of Junior Parkruns in the UK is yet another, which has recently been declined mainspace-move. Parkrun itself may be notable, but that doesn't mean every (or even any) event they run is notable. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how our list policies work. Per WP:CSC, a valid type of list is one where "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria". — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 17:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would require people to admit that individual park run events are not notable, and stop creating articles for them. Natureium (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Parkruns in the United Kingdom, where it was established pages like this are acceptable, and in my opinion the page passes WP:LISTN. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 17:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Majority of list entries are non notable and many links are just passing mention in various articles. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS based on the result of the AfD from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Parkruns in the United Kingdom we do not automatically assume inherent notability based on another article (to be fair that one should be renominated for deletion as well). Ajf773 (talk)
Comment. Per WP:CSC a valid type of list is one where every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. In addition Parkrun = Park + Run. Parkruns aren't races they are social events so a list of Parks that have a parkrun is encyclopedic. Szzuk (talk) 06:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no category for parkruns in the United States, so point is not valid in this case. Ajf773 (talk) 09:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment. I note however that you live in New Zealand, there are plenty of Parkruns there. Why don't you go to one? If you can't run it you can walk it, like many others, it is a good reason to go to the park to get some exercise and enjoy whatever else is there. Szzuk (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment has absolutely no relevance to the purpose of this discussion. I also noticed you created four articles with Parkrun in their title which have all been deleted by consensus, perhaps you need to realise parkruns are not as notable as you make them out to be. Ajf773 (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on content, not the contributor. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does your comment There is no category for parkruns in the United States, so point is not valid in this case. actually mean? I created those articles with increasing levels of referencing to test what I could and could not add, I started with local refs, then weak national refs, finally ending up with strong national refs and a keep. This is a list not an individual parkrun. Szzuk (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List articles have to be assessed for notability too. Ajf773 (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTN says Notability of lists is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. In discussing "Parkrun" we are discussing the set or group of Parkruns that number hundreds. Parkrun has dozens of references as can be seen in the main article. Szzuk (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We also have a policy called WP:NOTDIRECTORY which lists can easily pertain to be if almost all list entries are comprised of non-articles. The quality of any references are important and the ones provided in this article are lacking in depth of coverage. Ajf773 (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your Notdirectory link and this article doesn't fit into it anywhere - but it definitely fits into LISTN. Szzuk (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTPURP, since the list is a valuable information source for users interested in parkruns in America, and can be used for further development purposes. This is a Wikinotable list. And as to the argument about each item in the list not being notable: per WP:LISTN, since the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. -The Gnome (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly is the group or set that is notable? Do we assume that if hotel is notable then we should have lists of every single hotel in the world?? Ajf773 (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have List of hotels. bd2412 T 20:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From that list: "... notable skyscraper landmarks or historic hotels which are covered in multiple reliable publications. It is not to be a directory of every hotel in every country.". The equivalent here would be "not to be a list of every time a group of people go running in a park". — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That ship has sailed, Rwxrwxrwx . We've already established that a parkrun is notable and it's not about "every time a group of people go running in a park." As to "hotels," Ajf773, you're spot on! We have lists of hotels depending on place. We have them from New York to Metro Manila; we have lists of chains, lists of large ones, and lists of casino hotels. We have so many hotel lists that we have a list of lists!

-The Gnome (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where was it determined that a parkrun is notable? Natureium (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nesta Silvera[edit]

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

Was prodded and deleted back in May. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete - coverage is not yet indepth enough. - Scarpy (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TOOSOON. Highly rated but not enough to make him notable at this time....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most college football players are not notable, this especially applies for those who have not actually played in any college games.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Nothing to show notability as a football player and fails to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 16:16, 29 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Migra Studium Foundation[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 16:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - strictly speaking the tougher WP:NCORP standards should be used as an organisation. After filtering out the multiple sources with no deep link/dead link, the sources either lacked intellectual independence, or had no Sig Cov on the organisation itself. Usually no more than 6/7 lines. There were two sources that covered the foundation's attack on interned minors, but this was both a specific foundation action, and more in the form of a phrased press release rather than anything else. I haven't yet done my own BEFORE check on sources elsewhere, so I won't cast my !vote yet. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm skeptical of English Wikipedia entries based primarily on other language sources that don't have articles in those Wikipedias (Spanish or Catalan Wikipedias in this case) . Perhaps that's not strict WP: something or another all caps labeled policy, but it for sure influences my opinion about the notability of topics. - Scarpy (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- This appears to be a one-location ministry, which is probably no more significant than a local church, which we routinely delete or merge to its place. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-I don't claim to have access to Spanish-sources but when Peterkingiron says to delete, I will toe the line.....∯WBG^converse 11:55, 27 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. WP:HEY Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Hilbert[edit]

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

Article seems to make claim based on his religious practice but there is no RS I could ascertain in this article or elsewhere on the subject or at least no RS that talks about him in significance, though I had a hard time figuring out if Yee documentary was RS or not. Most of the sourcing on this page relates back to his service in Vietnam. He does not meet any criteria of WP:NSOLDIER. Further the sources are generally about Hilbert either only in part or are offered as first person retellings and thus is not an independent secondary source. Books are self-published, other articles not enough to satisfy any notability requirement. Sources not present in the page do not seem to bolster claim for notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The better RS's used as references only give him passing mention. There's an NPR piece, which gives him direct coverage, but it's an OP/Ed. The article was apparently created by an WP:SPA. Potential WP:AUTOBIO issues. NickCT (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe that the basic story of his being shot in the head, surviving, and going on to become a zen priest is very noteworthy. And while the RS isn't always about that specific story, when taken as a whole they do tell that story. The Las Cruces Sun News article is completely about him. While the page concerning him on NPR has the label "Opinion" it doesn't read as an OP/Ed piece - I think the label of "Opinion" is a error. he PBS series certainly features his story. The documentaries feature him, or are completely about him. A lot of the references are about Vietnam but that is because there is just a lot more of that information available. In this day and age when stolen valor is an issue I wanted to make sure that aspect was well documented. He is a prominent Zen teacher but that doesn't exactly get a lot of coverage in our media. I also wanted to say that, yes this is my first article but everyone has to start somewhere. I am not sure where you all draw the line between new and an WP:SPA. Also, I have no connection with Daiho Harvey Hilbert and it this certainly isn't a WP:AUTOBIO issue. Like I said this was my first article, if you have any advice on how to bring it more in line with what you would like to see, please let me know. --Uiviu (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. , posible speedy delete G11, for promotionalism This is effectually an advertisement for his practice and his self-published books. There is no point in trying to rewrite, because there is no oinformation that would establish notability . DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as marginally notable and promotional. The inclusion of all of his honorifics was promotional in itself. Also, being noteworthy and being notable are not the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In response to the criticism I removed anything that I felt could be considered promotional. Uiviu (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have improved upon the article, tightened writing, rearranged sections and paragraphs, removed duplicate info, and added content with reliable sources. The subject was featured in a lengthy piece by NPR's "Morning Edition," while PBS also included him in a documentary series about Vietnam vets. The subject twice spoke as an expert witness before the U.S. Congress. His military awards add to his notability, as well as his published research in studies and co-authoring books. Meets notability guidelines and passes WP:Bio and WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I personally feel that the sources that are being cited support what is being said about Harvey Daiho Hilbert, I don't feel in anyway it is advertising or promoting anything more then his life itself. I do find interesting what others are saying, that it is all about him. Well, who else would it be about? Again, this articles is a supportive historical snapshot of Harvey Diaho Hilbert's life ... just like many other articles out there about other folks and their lives. I know Diaho Hilbert and I know about his life and I find no misrepresentation here about that what-so-ever, I feel it is well supported by it's references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenjukai (talk • contribs) 17:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One last point I still feel that the article - as it currently written - is acceptable and meets the criteria for Notability. I believe that the concerns mentioned by the two other folks that voted to delete have been addressed. And I think the editing done by AuthorAuthor has tightened up the page. While I understand that my opinion might not carry the weight of others due to my inexperience, I would think that, by the same token, one would have to weigh AuthorAuthor's opinion heavily given all his work on Wikipeida. There are three votes to keep and three to delete - with the caveat that the concerns expressed by two of those deletes have been addressed. I would also note that Harvey Hilbert is mentioned on Wikipedia already in the article Timeline_of_Zen_Buddhism_in_the_United_States - another indication of his notability. In fact, if you go to Timeline_of_Zen_Buddhism_in_the_United_States you will see that almost everyone but Harvey has a Wikipedia page about them. By my count more than 95% have Wikipedia pages. To me that is a strong argument that he is Notable enough for a page. Lastly, I would argue that NPR, local newspaper, PBS, Congressional record etc sum to a sufficient number of RS mentions. Uiviu (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bill Smart's opinion.
Keep this page Larson97 (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC) moved from talk page

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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Academy of Creative Endeavors[edit]

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

Non-notable stub with little potential for expansion due to lack of RS coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 15:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find approximately 0 good sources for this. NickCT (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:33, 24 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) 16:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is an academic organization not a school so it needs to meet WP:ORGCRIT AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. Appears to be defunct. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:22, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Pienaar[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Struggling to find anything but a couple passing mentions in RS. I'm surprise this 10-year-old article hasn't been nominated before. It seems like it was created by an WP:SPA. NickCT (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 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 deleted. bd2412 T 20:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Social Research and Action Center[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 13:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Search of the translated article under its french name, Centre de recherche et d'action sociales, produces additional results which seem to me to satisfy the criterion of Deep coverage: "provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub". Also, it meets the audience criterion with coverage which is national. The independence of sources criterion seems to be satisfied by references which show inclusion in independently published books as well as in several of the footnotes which satisfy the independent source criterion. Since English is the most commonly spoken language worldwide, I think that this article on a notable French NGO deserves to be translated into the English Wikipedia.

Please check all my latest additions: [22], [23], published book quoted in [24], a much more detailed history of the center carried in an independent source, the annual, four-day conference carried on the Catholic schools' website, [25], an independent commendation of its website, the prominence given to its editorializing in an independent journal, [26]. And what of the two works quoted in the original French article (and included in my references)? Jzsj (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The prominence given to its editorializing in an independent journal" is in fact nothing more than ONE mention of the name. Nothing more. Inégaux devant la mort. Gaël Giraud,jésuite, économiste, Ceras (Centre d'étude et de recherche en action sociale) The Banner talk 19:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get into an analysis:--

As to your first reference, the publisher states Créée en 1907 par les jésuites et éditée par le Centre de recherche et d’action sociales (Ceras) which translates to Created in 1907 by the Jesuits and edited by the Center for Social Research and Action (Ceras)

We need independent sources.

A library houses a journal which is published by CERAS

So??

The much more detailed history is another sister-catholic-site.

Non-independent.

General Secratariat of Catholic eduation mentions that CERAS is going to hold a conference.

I guess you've mis-thought that organizations holding conferences automatically qualifies for a WP article.They don't.

The televison reccomendation was by a local catholic channel.

Relevance, as to global notability and independence, gone for a toss.

The prominence given to its editorializing in an independent journal is the bare and basic fact that one of the members of CERAS wrote an article in La Croix, a Roman Catholic newspaper.

Stop indulging in over-exaggerative-lying.

Two sources, from Riposte Catholique are not accessible in India or is down.

What surprises me is that your competency seems to be on a near-constant level and probably decreasing. Learn some calculus, eh?! ∯WBG^converse 11:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Finding it tough to get English language sources on "Social Research and Action Center", but it looks like there could be a number of sources for "Popular Action" or "Action Populaire". These organizations the same thing, right? It might help the Keep argument if some English language sources covering "Action Populaire" were inserted. NickCT (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a search for the French name ("Centre de recherche et d'action sociales") and its location in La PLaine Saint-Denis) returns very little. For something that has been open 110 years, there should be a lot of coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the added sources including books are enough for a close pass of WP:GNG, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- A ministry with 14 staff and 4 volunteers and 114 years old may be more significant than a local church. If kept, it should be under its actual name (in French). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Nothing in reliable sources (not even French dailies et al).Also see my analysis of Jzsj's sourcing, above.∯WBG^converse 11:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, and per dissection of sourcing by Winged Blades of Godric, above. -The Gnome (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - no notable Ghits in either English or French. Fails WP:GNG. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 14:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcery[edit]

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

Notability for this book has not been shown JonnyDKeen (talk) 13:20, 24 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 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep. All of Pratchett's Discworld books have their own articles (template listing at the bottom of the article page). Google search for "sourcery terry pratchett" generates 75000 hits, including several independent reviews in the first 3 pages or so. Notability may not be shown in the article, but a trivial WP:BEFORE effort would establish that the book is notable, and AFD is not cleanup.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Satisfies criteria 5 of WP:NBOOK. The author, Terry Pratchett, has received a knighthood for services to literature. His works are generally the object of academic study eg [27]. James500 (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per the others above. Major author. This was a lazy AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite the WP:INHERITED- and WP:OSE-type arguments made by some of the "snow(ball) keep" !votes above (the claim, for instance, that a book about Pratchett and philosophy probably includes some coverage of this book in particular is laughable, and Oakshade's jab at the nominator borders on NPA-violation), I find it incredibly hard to believe that enough coverage in reliable secondary sources doesn't exist to write a decent article on an early entry in the Discworld series.Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBOOK#5. It's difficult to find contemporaneous reviews of a book published in 1988, but I'm sure they exist. [28] [29] [30] [31] are some reviews at the top of a Google search (though I can't vouch for their publishers). And of course TVTropes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBOOK. The book has received several non-trivial reviews. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 01:31, 29 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. MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

White N3rd[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and subsequently WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Either it's WP:TOOSOON as the previous voter said, or the article is merely promotional. Everything available online is run-of-the-maill retail/streaming sites with no significant media coverage. Note that the article says that he was nominated at the MOBO Awards but actually he was the producer of a song that got nominated, so the honor actually goes to the song and not him. He's a behind-the-scenes kind of artist and can stay that way here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:39, 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 all. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1910 population census in Croatia (Brdovec)[edit]

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

WP:NOT for statistics, and lack of notability for the census of one municipality in one year.

Also nominated for the same reason are:

1910 population census in Croatia (Dubravica)
1910 population census in Croatia (Zaprešić)

If this gets closed as "delete", please also delete the then empty Category:1910 population census in Zagreb County and Category:1910 population census in Croatia, and the then useless Template:1910 population census in Zagreb County. Fram (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Each of these duplicates content already in the article for each settlement (Brdovec, Dubravica, Zagreb County and Zaprešić respectively). If there were a good reason to split any or all of those articles per WP:CONSPLIT or WP:SIZESPLIT, and the information were accordingly removed from the parent articles, then these would be appropriate, so neither notability nor WP:INDISCRIMINATE is the concern here, strictly speaking. But there's no reason why any of the relevant sections in those articles would need to be split, so no reason for these to exist separately. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is reason why it stand separate. Some towns and municipalities have over 100 settlements so it would be too much for one article about town or municipality. Also in town/municipality article there is data for the total population (which stand there only for the reason if you delete separate article), and in separate article about all of settlements. That's the only reason why i make it separate. Also iwill delete tabela in the article of town/municipality itself if majority of comments will stand on the side to keep alive this separate articles.--Rethymno (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment these certainly aren't reasonable stand-alone articles, but why not redirect to the towns? power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Because they are very unlikely search terms? Fram (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: these can easily be contained within their main articles. I agree with Arms & Hearts that WP:SIZESPLIT is the applicable policy here. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:12, 30 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 anyone would like to work on it as a draft, let me (or another admin) know and it can be undeleted and moved to draft space. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reality-warper[edit]

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

Listing at AfD as I couldn't find a speedy that fit, but this is an unreferenced stub on something entirely fictional. At best this could be a list of fictional characters who have the power, there's no grounds for an actual article. JamesG5 (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, I saw this too and was considering the best criterion for handling it. (Draftify/PROD/AfD] If the creator of this very new 'article' can show this is a notable Trope (literature), covered in depth by sources, other than a simple 'power' that a number of science fiction characters may have, then maybe there's validity to this. Otherwise, I see no future for it here. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or drafity Also tagged with for deletion for CSD under numerous reasonings --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Declined, because it didn't fit any of those categories. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SarekOfVulcan, well there isn't anything to work with. The author also admits it's under creation so either delete or drafty,

At most WP:G1 applies cause that one line doesn't adequately say what the subject is about. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Read G1 again. It's fairly explicit about this not applying. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And it's not no-context for anyone who's watched Infinity War. It's expandable, but if someone doesn't put in the effort to add explicit sources, I wouldn't shed a tear if it got snapped. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SarekOfVulcan, well I think it doesn't really say what the subject is. Is the reality warper an object? A person? A technology?

It says "An entity capable of warping the fabric of space–time itself," which is quite meaningless IMHO.

It seems to describe a person or creature of some sort. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Looks like we (edit conflict) there and I posted the same time as you. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 2: The closest article I think would be applicable would be https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealityWarper

And as you said it makes no sense to someone outside a particular fandom. So let's agree to disagree. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. No sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 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. – Joe (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1955 United Kingdom heat wave[edit]

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

Article is a 3-line stub about a local drought in 1955, no documentation of an "associated heatwave". No WP:LASTING notability for what the article itself calls "the 7th worst drought in Yorkshire". — JFG ^talk 11:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full AfD list of non-notable heat waves:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1906 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1955 United Kingdom heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983 British Isles heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1990 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1995 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 European heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 North America South and Eastern heatwave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Western North American heat wave (2nd nomination): N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Pacific Northwest heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late 2009 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Southwestern United States heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2014 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 South-Eastern Australian heatwave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Swedish heat wave: Y Kept; should be expanded and renamed 2014 Scandinavian heat wave
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 American Northeast heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Southern Europe heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April 2018 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Eastern Canada heat wave: Merged
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 North American heat wave: No consensus

Thanks for participating. — JFG ^talk 11:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) — Last updated 19:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 9 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) 01:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Improve - the heatwave and drought are certainly a very notable event. The article is poorly written and should be improved. RandomIntrigue - 22:55 19 August 2018 (UTC)

We could perhaps improve the writing but can we do something about the sourcing? It's the deciding factor in such matters. Could you help? -The Gnome (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This drought is verifiably notable: [32]. James500 (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source you're citing does not even mention a 1955 heat wave. -The Gnome (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. Table 3 says that the drought of 1955 to 1956 was "notable". James500 (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC) This is not an easy thing to search GBooks for because there were other droughts in 1955/6, because many contemporary periodicals are not included, because books dealing with droughts often use dates to refer to sources etc (background noise), and because of the way the search engine works, but see for example: Estates Gazette [33], Ibis [34] (on p 13 of the latter the April 1955 drought is described as "outstanding" and "severe" [35]). Also Meteorological Magazine etc [36] [37] [38]. James500 (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The mentions are almost all about the drought and not about some heat wave. We're not supposed to deduce, conclude, or hypothesize as Wikipedia editors. We go by sources. -The Gnome (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you bother to read our article, it says that it is about "The UK drought of 1955 and associated heatwave". They are part of the same incident which our article is about. To try to make a distinction between the drought and the heatwave is semantic hair splitting. Even if there is an issue it is easily solved by a page move to something like 1955 United Kingdom drought and heatwave or even 1955 United Kingdom drought if sources on the heatwave are not forthcoming. Remember, the solution to an incorrectly titled page is a page move, not deletion. James500 (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC) July 1955 heat wave killed 429 people: [39]. Another source would be [40], which also says sunniest summer for years. And another would be [41] which says the heat wave led to mass food poisoning. So, yes, there was a heat wave. There are a lot of sources that speak of a heat wave in 1955, but it is not easy to determine what country they are talking about from snippet view, since there was also a heat wave in, for example, California. James500 (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Sources, or whatever exists that can be reasonably entitled as such (the plural is a stretch), indicate a few droughts here and there, and nowhere near the heat levels for which the prose strives. -The Gnome (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If that is true, why does Ibis describe the April 1955 drought as "outstanding" and "severe"? James500 (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because the drought might indeed have been all that. As to the epithets, many events denoted in various media as "outstanding" and/or "severe" in History cannot be found in Wikipedia. Now what about the heat wave? By the way, Ibis is a journal published by the British Ornithologists' Union. We probably need something better than their assessment for an allegedly significant event in temperature outliers. -The Gnome (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought the British Ornithologists' Union are capable of telling a severe drought from a normal one, but I will endeavour to find more sources if I have time. If many severe and outstanding events (especially from the 1950s) are missing from Wikipedia, the cause is more likely to be a lack of interest from our editors than a lack of sources. James500 (talk) 16:14, 27 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) Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 14:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manvel Mamoyan[edit]

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

Promotional article whose claim to fame are obscure Guinness World Records. Non notable individual. PRehse (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 13:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 13:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 13:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Guinness World Records is a reliable source. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But does not confer notability.PRehse (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Harut111 (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete passing references does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article does not contain promotional elements and is strictly based on references stated above. The article presents Mamoyan's biography and activities, rather than his fame. --XenonX88 (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, to my mind, 3 Guinness World Records certificate bring notability--Armineaghayan (talk) 07:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I believe a relist is legitimate given there is reasonable dispute other whether Guiness records provide notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:55, 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 merge to IMETS. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Weather Impacts Decision Aid (MyWIDA)[edit]

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

Not a notable software program. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Integrated Weather Effects Decision Aid - is probably not, at present, notable enough for a standalone article. Vorbee (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Worth checking if merge and redirect targets exist/are spelt correctly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was a major software program used by the US Department of Defense, and is the predecessor of later software currently in use worldwide. It should not be deleted. Rafreyna (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with IMETS. Dubious notability independently and better to give context anyhow. Daask (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This system is used extensively by the US Army, Navy and Air Force in conflicts worldwide. I've added additional information on development of MyWIDA, its predecessor IWEDA and more supporting information (i.e. secondary source). Rafreyna (talk) 18:23, 27 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. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Weapon End-to-End Performance Model[edit]

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

Not a notable technology product. One of several page creations of the same editor that I'm nominating here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this topic nominated for deletion? Please provide detail. This is a major software used regularly by the US Army. Rafreyna (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient variety of sources to establish notability. I am not knowledgeable enough with these institutions to speak strongly to independence, but this seems to be a significant development within its field. Daask (talk) 14:04, 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 and redirect to Helena Blavatsky. There is clear consensus against having an article on this topic and there isn't a compelling argument put forth for keeping the article history "underneath" a redirect. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Occult or Exact Science?[edit]

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

An article about a non-notable 24 page article. The page has extensive references, but none of it establishes notability - there appears to be zero significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Even if one were to use WP:BKCRIT for a short article, it doesn't meet any of the criteria. --tronvillain (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --tronvillain (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Helena Blavatsky. No significant sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The criticism section superficially looks like it establishes notability, but when you read the actual sources it turns out that NONE of them mention this particular article. Very poor form indicative that maybe the contributions of the main authors who pulled the wool over our eyes should be examined more carefully for other similar attempts. jps (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Helena Blavatsky, no notability outside her.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect - I note that using sources that don't mention the article subject seems pretty common with this editr. Doug Weller talk 12:33, 18 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) 01:50, 19 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) 01:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (not seeing a reason to delete the history) to the Blavatsky article. I will say, however, that I'm pretty sure I've come across this work before, and I'm scarcely more than casually interested in occult silliness. i.e. I have a feeling that it's significant, but feelings without evidence at AfD are about as credible as the "science" in question. This article in particular is included in many works on synesthesia, but I cannot see, with a quick search, anything that would justify a stand-alone article at this time. Since it's quite possible that a lot of the sources that would show notability are old enough as to not show up in standard searches, I wouldn't be opposed to userfying this should the article creator request it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What particular reason is there to keep the history though? To preserve a record of an OR essay about a Theosophy article? Unless it's to preserve it as an example of the type of articles being created. --tronvillain (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Rhododendrites. Simonm223 (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rhododendrites. James500 (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect or redirect and don't merge I don't agree with Rhododentrite's "not seeing a reason to delete the history", since several earlier comments explicitly talked about the content being coatrack stuff added by disruptive editors pulling the wool over our eyes. I would argue that there is no reason to assume they won't try to take an AFD consensus not to delete the history as an excuse to re-add the content elsewhere. This content should not be preserved without explicit consensus to do so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a particularly strong opinion about deleting the history. I would just err on the side of not. The sorts of issues with the page don't strike me as the kind that are problematic to keep only in the history (i.e. BLP, copyvio, advertising, personal essay -- which this may verge upon but meh -- etc.). Maybe because I haven't dug as deeply as some others here, I've not seen the sort of egregious behavioral issues that would lead me to assume something other than good faith. If they're unclear about whether it should be added elsewhere, after all, why wouldn't they just add it elsewhere regardless of whether it's deleted? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An interesting disagreement specifically other whether the page history should be deleted prior to a redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Storm in a teacup. I am happy with either. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: It's not the end of the world if it's a simple delete, but it's hard for me to see how this article is anything other than a personal essay about the subject. --tronvillain (talk) 13:19, 27 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. MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prasanth Alexander[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence to support his role in films listed in the article. All I see is uncredited/minor roles in some major films. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak Delete –Though he has appeared in several TV shows, they've never been for more than a few episodes, and the only films he's starred in don't seem to be notable. I think that this should be deleted, but I'm open to hearing other arguments. Redditaddict6 9 18:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict6 9 18:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:51, 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce D. Jette[edit]

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

PROD challenged as "asserting notability", which is not in my view, a valid reason to remove a PROD since the claim was not that it didn't assert notability, but that he wasn't notable and that it was spam.

Non-notable mid-level political appointee: sub-cabinet, so not inherently notable, and the rest of the coverage is just your standard PR that is normal with any appointment, and routine coverage that isn't in-depth to him, but is brief and discusses what he does in his official capacity. Additionally, notability really doesn't matter here as it is likely a terms of use violation as undeclared paid editing, meaning there is no right for it to even be on the encyclopedia and that additionally it is excluded under local policy: WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was the one who removed the prod and I need to see some evidence that there is paid editing involved. Let's say, for the sake of argument that there is, it can be cleaned up because he is a notable figure. Definitely meets GNG with plenty of sources ranging from this NYT article to a Foreign Policy profile toa FedScoop artiicle, not to mention his Army biography. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's look at the sourcing you provided: the NYT article is quotes and contains no substantial coverage about him. Being quoted in the NYT is not indicative of notability. The next two are simply routine announcements of nominations for a sub-cabinet office. Foreign Policy is a better source than Fed Scoop, but I would count Fed Scoop on the level of typical trade mags, the difference being that it's industry is the federal government of the United States. Finally, you can't seriously think that his Army biography counts for notability: it isn't independent as it is produced by his employer. I have had multiple of those published by my employers over the years. I'm sure as hell not notable.
  Finally, the GNG doesn't matter as WP:N makes WP:NOTSPAM equal to the GNG, and something must pass both to get an article. This was created in violation of the TOU, the article history shows it clearly to be created for the intent of promotion, and it is simply a resume of a sub-cabinet official. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't counting his Army biography for the purposes of notability, perhaps that was a bit unclear, I was simply stating it provided biographical info. I really don't think NOTSPAM applies, the article as written looks like a typical politician bio. Jette is not just notable for his most recent post, he also received notability for inventing the packbot which saved lives in Iraq. There are more articles on him, for instance DefenseNews interview and this LA Times piece. As I've said before, any paid editing claims need to be substantiated, and the article can be cleaned up anyway. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - LA Times isn’t about him, but his invention. Interviews are primary sources and don’t establish notability. Cleaning up an article created in violation of our terms of use so they get more value out of it rather than deleting it actively harms this project. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is rarely called upon to do so, but occasionally, WP:NOT trumps WP:V; this is a classic example. As someone not a million miles away might say, please wait until someone with no COI decides [it's] notable and writes the article; although as the nom points out, the article subject is a middle-ranking politician, and the career trajectory would need to increase proportionately to pass WP:NPOL, as the coverage is currently a dearth of persistent or in-depth sourcing. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no problem with in-depth sourcing. I have no conflict of interest here (and it's never been proven that there was paid editing FYI) and I could write the article, but that seems kinda ridiculous given the effort here already. He is also an inventor and businessman besides a politician, and there are definitely enough sources here to write a decent article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Eesh. There's plenty of sources available, but I don't see any which really grant notability. The best ones are WP:ROUTINE announcements of his promotion. SportingFlyer talk 00:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as inventor of the PackBot. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:TonyBallioni, Note what the Los Angeles Times article cited above actually says: [42] "Jette, who has a doctoral degree from MIT, became a legend in Afghanistan when he suggested that the Army use robots instead of soldiers to search caves for Taliban fighters.When commanders told him it would take months or years to build a robot program, Jette said he could do it in 45 days with off-the-shelf technology, and then did it in fewer."] This is WP:SIGCOV, however brief.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and, basically, Bearian. Yes, he's a midrange political appointee, which often isn't enough. But he actually did something notable in that office, the packbot.CBS News That's a big enough deal to be worth an article. --GRuban (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 08:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His position is not one that would automatically qualify him for an article, but the references seem to me to be adequate to meet GNG, documenting in high-level Reliable Sources several out-of-the-ordinary things he has done. BTW The article's history is a godawful mess - originally written by someone whom TonyBalioni blocked for undeclared paid editing, then completely rewritten by an IP who said they had been “tasked” to scrub the page and use his Department of the Army official bio; that version was actually a copyvio, being copy/pasted from several sources [43][44], but no-one seems to have noticed that at the time. That rewrite was reversed, so what we now see is pretty much the Biografix version. Even if it was "commissioned spam" as described in the PROD rationale, I believe he meets our notability criteria. --MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 31 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. – Joe (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2006 European cold wave[edit]

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

WP:SYNTHESIS of anecdotal weather reports. No strong effects or WP:LASTING significance. Snow in Southern Europe happens occasionally. Nothing special in 2006. Wikipedia is not the Weather Channel. — JFG ^talk 09:19, 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) 11:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep International coverage of an out of the ordinary event. Agathoclea (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Winter happens every year, sometimes worse than other years. Sources are contemporaneous weather news that do not provide lasting impacts or notability. Reywas92^Talk 18:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just upon fact checking the first source mentioned in the article, I ran into WP:SYNTHESIS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unlike many/most of the articles nominated in this wave, this one isn't simply the Anglosphere Only Movement promoting itself. Snow in Lisbon is, by an order of magnitude, more notable than snow in London. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - it does seem to have WP:LASTING, here are a few papers about it [45][46], and here's Munich Re's report listing it as the deadliest cold snap in the 1980-2011 period. Daß Wölf 00:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to strong keep - looking at the Red Cross report, there were over 1,000 fatalities and over $1 billion in crop damage. I'd say this is at the very least a strong contender for the most damaging winter weather event in Europe in the last few decades. Daß Wölf 03:35, 16 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]

Keep per Dab Wolf. AmericanAir88 (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daß Wölf. James500 (talk) 16:04, 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 08:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a major natural phenomenon with significant death toll and economic effects. Meets WP:LASTING. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article contains WP:ROUTINE winter weather coverage and fails WP:GNG because no sources exist demonstrating significant notability for this event. Wikipedia is not the Weather channel, so it is not a repository for every new temperature or snowfall record that some find interesting. There is also nothing significantly notable regarding this winter caused crop damage, which happens every year to some degree in Europe. Moving onto fatalities, while these deaths were tragic for these individuals and their loved ones, in 2011, on average over 150,000 humans died every day on Earth |[1]. Earths population was smaller in 2006 so it would have been slightly fewer then, but the point is clear. Huge numbers of people die every day, including from the elements, and there was nothing remarkable about the death toll in Europe's winter of 2006. Newshunter12 (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per K.e.coffman. 208.54.87.254 (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Likely trainwrecked by the number of similar nominations made at the same time. – Joe (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1995 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave[edit]

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

WP:SYNTHESIS of anecdotal weather reports. No strong effects or WP:LASTING significance. Wikipedia is not the Weather Channel. — JFG ^talk 11:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full AfD list of non-notable heat waves:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1906 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1955 United Kingdom heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983 British Isles heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1990 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1995 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 European heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 North America South and Eastern heatwave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Western North American heat wave (2nd nomination): N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Pacific Northwest heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late 2009 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Southwestern United States heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2014 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 South-Eastern Australian heatwave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Swedish heat wave: Y Kept; should be expanded and renamed 2014 Scandinavian heat wave
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 American Northeast heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Southern Europe heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April 2018 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Eastern Canada heat wave: Merged
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 North American heat wave: No consensus

Thanks for participating. — JFG ^talk 11:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) — Last updated 19:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:54, 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) 01:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a major drought of exceptional historical importance: [47]. James500 (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More listings of droughts. -The Gnome (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Not a notable event. -The Gnome (talk) 21:29, 30 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. Although numerically tied, the arguments for keep carry more weight than "per nom". – Joe (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1906 United Kingdom heat wave[edit]

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

WP:SYNTHESIS of anecdotal temperature records. Article can be summarized as "Late Summer 1906 was hot." No strong effects or WP:LASTING significance. Wikipedia is not the Weather Channel. — JFG ^talk 11:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full AfD list of non-notable heat waves:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1906 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1955 United Kingdom heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983 British Isles heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1990 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1995 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 European heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 North America South and Eastern heatwave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Western North American heat wave (2nd nomination): N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Pacific Northwest heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late 2009 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Southwestern United States heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2014 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 South-Eastern Australian heatwave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Swedish heat wave: Y Kept; should be expanded and renamed 2014 Scandinavian heat wave
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 American Northeast heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Southern Europe heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April 2018 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Eastern Canada heat wave: Merged
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 North American heat wave: No consensus

Thanks for participating. — JFG ^talk 11:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) — Last updated 19:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Article has potential, but there is WP:OR in the article. Send it to draftspace until the WP:OR issues have been resolved. The Duke of Nonsense^{What is necessary for thee?} 11:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi User:The Duke of Nonsense can you comment on the notability of the subject with justification, that is the main topic of the discussion here. draftify ,cleanup & OR are secondary. --DBig Xray 14:24, 16 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) 01:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Several records were broken, with only one being succeeded 5 years later. Seems quite notable to me, but like the other heat waves for deletion, it may not be. Weak keep would be the best choice. Redditaddict6 9 03:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most of the article so far is synthesis, but I've found significant coverage in a recent Times article. I imagine there'll be more in offline sources, given the number of records set. Daß Wölf 19:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Broke several records and satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. A hot summer in Britain, indeed. -The Gnome (talk) 21:10, 30 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. No support for deletion (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1990 United Kingdom heat wave[edit]

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

WP:SYNTHESIS of anecdotal weather reports. No strong effects or WP:LASTING significance. Wikipedia is not the Weather Channel. — JFG ^talk 11:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full AfD list of non-notable heat waves:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1906 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1955 United Kingdom heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983 British Isles heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1990 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1995 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 European heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 North America South and Eastern heatwave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Western North American heat wave (2nd nomination): N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Pacific Northwest heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late 2009 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Southwestern United States heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2014 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 South-Eastern Australian heatwave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Swedish heat wave: Y Kept; should be expanded and renamed 2014 Scandinavian heat wave
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 American Northeast heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Southern Europe heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April 2018 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Eastern Canada heat wave: Merged
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 North American heat wave: No consensus

Thanks for participating. — JFG ^talk 11:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) — Last updated 19:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:09, 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) 14:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:09, 9 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) 01:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article states that the temperature reached a new record high for the UK, Record hot temperatures, especially when national records are broken, are always notable. - RandomIntrigue 19 August 22:49 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomIntrigue (talk • contribs)
Keep This was a major drought of exceptional historical importance: [48]. James500 (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again with that list of droughts? -The Gnome (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Broke records and caused a huge environmental impact including fires. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:21, 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. – Joe (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave[edit]

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

WP:SYNTHESIS of anecdotal weather reports. No strong effects or WP:LASTING notability. Article itself states "However, in the general sense, Britain did not have an overall exceptional summer." Wikipedia is not the Weather Channel. On a positive note, retailers sold more barbecues. — JFG ^talk 11:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was very notable to the millions of people (including me) in Britain who suffered through the heat. And to the firemen on Saddleworth Moor. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But was it unusual? Even Britain has a Summer, and it (briefly) gets hot. I don't recall 2013 as exceptionally so, in the way of 1976, 1984, 2003(?) or 2018. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was thinking of the 2018 heatwave. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 2018 looks like a keeper, all over the Northern hemisphere. Tragedy in Japan and Greece, etc. This is exactly why non-notable summers should not have articles that drown the truly exceptional weather events into a murky "all summers are hot somewhere". For the UK, Summer 2003 and Winter 2009–10 come to mind, for all of Europe Winter 1990–91. — JFG ^talk 17:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full AfD list of non-notable heat waves:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1906 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1955 United Kingdom heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983 British Isles heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1990 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1995 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 European heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 North America South and Eastern heatwave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Western North American heat wave (2nd nomination): N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Pacific Northwest heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late 2009 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Southwestern United States heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2014 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 South-Eastern Australian heatwave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Swedish heat wave: Y Kept; should be expanded and renamed 2014 Scandinavian heat wave
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 American Northeast heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Southern Europe heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April 2018 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Eastern Canada heat wave: Merged
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 North American heat wave: No consensus

Thanks for participating. — JFG ^talk 11:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) — Last updated 19:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Sources speak of a temperature record. Records can fall the year after so they might not be lasting, on the other hand the US assures us that there is no global warming, so that can't be. Agathoclea (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under Agathoclea's statement. 86.181.64.189 (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— 86.181.64.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - per nom. Wasn't a notably hot summer in my recollection, certainly no 2018. Spleodrach (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Spleodrach just because you don't remember this notably hot summer, it isn't a valid reason to delete the article. 2013 was one of the more notably hot summers of the 21st century (so far). - RandomIntrigue 19 August 2018 22:59 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomIntrigue (talk • contribs)
Delete per nomination. Most Keep suggestions seem based on personal experience and preferences, a pattern conforming to the article's equally weak sourcing. -The Gnome (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and lack thereof : The first three links to the Met Office are resting in peace; the only Met link alive is an explanation of what is a "heat wave"; the next two links are to an enthusiast's personal blog, enticingly titled 'booty' (before you scamper over, they contain numerical data and nothing else); this Guardian article, cited as a source for recorded events, is a prediction about "hot weather in England and Wales," with "heat wave" only in the title, while in this Telegraph report, with "heat wave" again only in the title, we learn that "the temperatures are above average for this time of year"; we have a Guardian article that talks up a "heat wave", yet we also learn that the Met Office announced that the next day "would be dry with lengthy spells of sunshine and blue sky for England, Wales and southern Scotland, although it would be cloudier in north-west Scotland and Northern Ireland with the possibility of a few light showers". The rest of the sources follow the same hyperbolic pattern.

One news item appearing in most reports is the Met's characterization of the temperature situation as meriting a "Level 3 Warning," which is one below the maximum (and which may remind some people of terrorist-threat warning levels). However, these warnings do not concern "extensive" and "persistent" hot weather, or in other words a "heat wave." This level's warning is triggered when the Met Office confirms threshold temperatures for one of more regions have been reached for one day and the following night, and the forecast for the next day has a greater than 90% confidence level that the day threshold temperature will be met (sample source). And that's it. Hot weather in the UK. When was it not front-page news?

-The Gnome (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Hottest summer since 1997 isn't a record (that's less than 20 years). It had a "pretty exceptional summer", debunking all notability of this event. Similarly to all other heat waves, this one is not notable. Redditaddict6 9 17:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 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 keep. – Joe (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spring 2013 United Kingdom cold spell[edit]

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

Ordinary weather reports. No WP:LASTING effects. "The daffodil flower crop bloomed too late for Mothering Sunday and Easter." Darn! — JFG ^talk 09:33, 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 Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Winter happens every year, sometimes worse than other years. Sources are contemporaneous weather news that do not provide lasting impacts or notability. Reywas92^Talk 18:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we were running out of storage space, then I suppose such minor articles might be deleted, but this was a notable event, with winter conditions appearing in what is normally spring, and it is occasionally mentioned round here as an exceptional event. Why not retain the record? There are thousands of articles on much more trivial topics. Dbfirs 20:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not indeed? While we don't lack storage space, that is not a sufficient reason to keep details about a local late-blooming spring. Wikipedia is not about WP:EVERYTHING. Regarding the abundance of articles on more trivial topics, I sympathize with the excess of WP:POKEMON too, but that is unrelated, per WP:OTHERSTUFF. — JFG ^talk 13:09, 12 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) 01:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies GNG. Decimated livestock and wildlife, caused various problems, worst march since 1883, worst Easter Sunday since records began. James500 (talk) 16:49, 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 08:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies GNG. It caused records to be broken and terrible effects. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a sufficiently referenced article about an unusual natural phenomenon with notable effects on economony. Satisfies WP:GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article consists of WP:ROUTINE coverage and fails WP:GNG because there are no sources here or elsewhere that demonstrate that spring 2013 was remarkably unique in the U.K. Temperature or snowfall records are constantly being broken around the world every day, so there is nothing that stands out in this article as permanently deserving of a place in this encyclopedia. Animal migration patterns vary to some degree every year from time immemorial and livestock losses are an unfortunate part of life for any farmer, and commonly happen in winter. So do crop harvesting times and plant survival rates. This article has a slight focus on the holiday Easter, which shifts in date every year, so the temperature record is pretty much meaningless and the daffodil crop news as justification for this article is a joke. This event was a bit meaningful for those in the U.K. at the time, but only because that was their reality on planet earth then, it doesn't have notable meaning in the U.K. now because the planet kept turning for those with their heads in the real world and not stuck in the Weather channel's archives. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Severe winter conditions occurring in spring are not "routine" in the UK. The fact that the planet turns doesn't mean that we forget all past events. Dbfirs 06:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. 208.54.87.254 (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to Draft:Barry Laden. There is clear consensus for deletion, but it is also argued that coverage indicates a subject in the process of developing notability. The article is therefore moved to draft to allow for the possibility of additional sources being discovered or developed and added to the article. If the article goes without improvement for six months, it will be deleted as abandoned, in accordance with the general policy for articles in draft space. bd2412 T 22:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Barry Laden[edit]

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

I don't think this article demonstrates that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Coverage does not show a significant contribution. Tacyarg (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being a Member of the Order of the British Empire is a strong hint that's he's notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Partly because the MBE designation is itself notable, and partly because the MBE is most commonly given to people who have done notable good things. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the MBE, but looking at earlier discussions the consensus seems to be that it does not automatically confer notability. Take your point about actions leading to MBE however. Tacyarg (talk) 09:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While it is a little strange to see comments about oneself and notability in print, I thought I would make a comment that I hope is helpful in this discussion. Firstly, as a Liveryman of the Drapers' Company in London I was advised that I was the first member of the company in living memory to have been awarded the MBE for work specifically in our field. It is true that many recipients of the MBE are not notable, many recipients being in their older age as a recognition of a lifetime of work. However, in my case, I was just 45 years old when the business was only 11 years old. This in itself demonstrates that the Nomination's Committee must have decided on my notability and worth. The business itself, The Laden Showroom, which has now closed is NOT recommended for deletion so it seems strange that a personal page is proposed for deletion. As a polymath it could be interesting for readers to note that my artistic career is soon to take off and there is scheduled to be a significant amount of press, local and international around my London exhibition in September.

I would therefore respectfully propose that (a) the article is not deleted and (b) anyone with further significant doubts review the page again in 12 months to see whether new Press linked to appropriate external references evidences a notable advancement in my relevance in the arts.(talk) 16.07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment - On the one hand, self-promotional; on the other, MBE. I'm less than impressed with the sourcing... No opinion. Carrite (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Large feature in The News, Portsmouth today regarding art exhibition. Sources and external references mounting! (talk) 17.19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 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 08:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unambiguous WP:AUTOBIO, with no prejudice against recreation by editor(s) who are unconnected to subject or who follow WP:COI guidelines. Bakazaka (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that above !vote to keep the article on Barry Laden is from user Barryladen. Bakazaka (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sources are passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Promotionalism only on a nn individual. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as failing notability guidelines for WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Ifnord (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 14:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving On (Marshmello song)[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NSONGS. Failed to receive significant coverage from reliable sources. Hayman30 (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies the general notability criteria as having received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic - Billboard [49], Substream Magazine [50], DJ Mag [51], Your EDM [52], Dancing Astronaut [53], Los 40 [54], Run the Trap, EDM Sauce. The editor whose username is Z0 13:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 13:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 13:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Run the Trap and EDM Sauce are obviously blogs. That DJ Mag article with four sentences doesn't count as "significant coverage". Your EDM is a trivial blog-ish source at best, I would personally avoid building an article primarily with this site. 3 or 4 sources doesn't constitute "multiple" considering the song merely charted at 18 on US Hot Dance/Electronic and nowhere else. It may pass GNG but it fails to meet NSONG, which is a notability guideline specifically targeted at songs. Hayman30 (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The DJ Mag article is wholly dedicated to this song so it does count as a significant source. Run the Trap is an established publication founded in 2012,[55] with a whole set of staff[56]. Same goes for EDM Sauce[57]. No, they're not obviously blogs. Your EDM has credible writers such as Matthew Meadows who's also the editor-in-chief at Billboard and a whole set of staff[58]. Charting on an acceptable Billboard chart per WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS, is also another indicator of notability. Your previous attempts to remove obviously notable articles as indicated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If It Were You, We'd Never Leave, proves you are unwilling to be proven wrong. The editor whose username is Z0 13:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, passing just the GNG is sufficient to keep an article as stated at WP:N, it does not even need to pass the NSONGS criteria. The editor whose username is Z0 13:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back at it again with your nonsensical reasoning, huh? DJ Mag doesn't count, regardless of whether it's dedicated to the song. Any review of the "article" would deem it insignificant coverage. On a side note, one of those four short sentences isn't even about the song. Run the Trap is an underground trap music website (what they called themselves), not an established publication, whether they were founded in 2012 is irrelevant. Yes, they have a bunch of contributors, not paid staff members, anyone can summit an article to them and be posted. Any blog can call itself "the most recognizable publication". Having a set of staff doesn't indicate that they are established publications, not mention their staff members are most likely just music enthusiasts not professional writers. Likewise, articles on EDM Sauce (oh that's juicy name isn't it) are written by music enthusiasts. I can make a website and invite all my friends to be my staff and call my site the most prestigious dance music publication, does my website count as a reliable source? No. These websites/blogs failed to build reputation or receive recognition from other independent sources, hence making them unreliable and unsuitable for Wikipedia. Why are you so supportive of these dodgy music blogs? Perhaps it's because they're the only ones you could find? And jeez, having a Billboard writer on a website doesn't immediately upgrade it to the same level as Billboard, nor does it automatically increase reliability, and the article aforementioned isn't even written by him. This is a good faith attempt at examining a possibly unnotable topic, not an "attempt to remove obviously notable articles". You need to stop quoting one instance of failed AfD nomination everywhere trying to put me bad light. I really don't know who's "unwilling to be proven wrong" here on Wikipedia. And passing GNG is not sufficient to keep an article, because GNG is merely creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. And it should ideally pass NSONGS as well, because if not, why were these guidelines created? Hayman30 (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes yes the name is indeed juicy, but that doesn't mean it isn't an acceptable reliable source on Wikipedia. These are not just music blogs but music journalism websites that have been in the industry for years/decades. If you read WP:N, it states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". In this case, it has met GNG with sources from Billboard, DJ Mag and Dancing Astronaut. The article of the previously-mentioned AFD had similar sources but still was kept in the discussion. The editor whose username is Z0 15:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes it's not an acceptable reliable source on Wikipedia, and I didn't even cite its name as a reason, I was merely pointing it out. I already explained why those dodgy websites are unreliable, you just don't wanna accept it. Seems like you're taking my words out of context now because you couldn't make a point. And you need to realise: these self-proclaimed "music websites" can be in the industry for a hundred years—that doesn't make them more reliable or notable. Reliability and reputation does not progress with time, they literally have no connection. They only way to indentify if a source is reliable is to see if it has been recognized by other reputable publications. Magazines like Billboard and DJ Mag are the quintessential examples here. And please read carefully, GNG is a presumption, not a guarantee, and we shouldn't entirely rely on it, nor should you use it to back yourself up. And as I've previously pointed out and extensively explained, 3 articles does not constitute "multiple" in this particular situation. I guess you just don't wanna hear it. Hayman30 (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, lad. I'll take a look at your reply in the evening and respond then with more details. The editor whose username is Z0 05:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the editor whose username is Z0. A topic that satisfies GNG does not need to satisfy any SNG. 2 sources constitute "multiple", never mind 3 or 4. Deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R because Marshmello has an article. James500 (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the Billboard coverage is compelling, as far as EDM tracks go:

Musically, “Moving On” is another bass-heavy, cutesy anthem in the mystery-producer's signature sound. It's right in his wheelhouse, so if you love Marshmello, you'll probably listen to this a few hundred times. The video already has a million views on YouTube.

K.e.coffman (talk) 18:58, 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 Userfy. Userfying to Ronita Bhattacharya MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kuasha Jakhon[edit]

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

Non-notable movie. Strikerforce^Talk 18:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - The film is out in a fortnight, there is quite a lot of coverage in various forms beforehand, which makes me reasonably confident that once it's out reviews will satisfy its notability requirements. 1 primary editor, it seems tailor-made to userfy to User:Ronita Bhattacharya. @Strikerforce: - do you have any specific objection to this (I've found it's better to ask so I don't make a muppet of myself)? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: I have no objection to that. Strikerforce^Talk 13:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per WP:TOOSOON. The notability of the movie isn't established yet. --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy until the film has significant coverage such as independent reviews in reliable sources, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:22, 31 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 keep nomination withdrawn —Kusma (t·c) 19:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jörg Michael[edit]

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

Contested PROD of recently recreated article. Non-notable member of several notable bands. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per GNG and sources in the article. There is plenty to establish notability even just with coverage of when he had cancer and left Stratovarius. For example: [59], [60], [61]. There are also a bunch of interviews: [62], [63], [64], [65], [66] (the list goes on).
There are also other more recent sources, but many are not in English and so are more difficult to dredge up on search engines, for example see: [67]. There are literally hundreds of brief mentions of him in various news articles: [68], [69], [70].
If I spoke German I'm sure I could find more. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do speak German, but to be fair, I made a bad assumption. Based on Insertcleverphrasehere's finds (and my lack of WP:BEFORE) I am withdrawing the nomination. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 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) AllyD (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Galerie Traversée[edit]

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

No established notability. Very promotional. AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G11. Created by 2 SPAs with no edits outside this page, and it has no content that belongs outside an ad. No coverage in RS that I can find either. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A longstanding promotional article established and developed by WP:SPAs QtheQueen and Traversee, about a defunct gallery. No evidence of attained notability provided or found in searches. AllyD (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found in news or book searches.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:26, 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 keep. Consensus for Keep via given available sources, though several !votes were lacking suitable justifications there is clearly a decision to preserve the article. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McCarthy Tétrault[edit]

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

Although this appears to be a large and illustrious firm, ythe refs are almost all dead links and searches reveal very little better. The list of alumni are (almost?) all from law companies long since defunct which presumably have been swallowed up by the current law firm or its predecessors. It is not uncommon for large law firms to have a low profile in the press, perhaps for good reason, but this one seems to have developed an unusually low profile. Regrettably to exist on Wikipedia, something more significant is needed. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's one of the movers and shakers in Canada, according to the Financial Post Clarityfiend (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable having been established back in 1855. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG due to coverage in GNews, GBooks etc. 830+ lawyers at one point [71]. Established 1855. Is or was the largest firm in Canada, [72] and the first national firm there. James500 (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, this needs referencing improvement — but such improvement is very definitely possible here. For a law firm with roots extending back to 1855, a lot of the potential referencing will be located in news retrieval databases rather than out in the open on the web — but we have no requirement that our sources be web-accessible, just that they be cited. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets requirements. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:34, 29 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. MelanieN (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Compton Menace[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria at WP:MUSICBIO: No certified albums, no placement on national music charts, etc. Ifnord (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There appears to be some mentions in reliable sources, but they all seem to be routine coverage regarding the release of new songs. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I must disagree with the previous voter, as the rapper has gotten some reliable media mentions beyond routine song releases. See [73], [74], [75]. But on the other hand, only the first of those (from AllHipHop) is truly about his own music, and the other two are about his involvement in various rapper feuds. He needs more reliable media notice on his own career, and arguing with other rappers does not contribute to notability (I hope). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:03, 30 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.