Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 August	26 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 redirect to The Lego Group. Well, consensus is clearly in favour of removal of the current article while it is not clear what the stance on the present content is. So redirecting to get rid of the article and to leave opportunities to copy worthwhile content over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Produktion AG[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, just a production plant (although the first outside Denmark for Lego) The Banner talk 23:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd say merge into Lego Group, but there are about 100 other articles on Lego that should be merged, so might as well just start deleting them. The Lego template gives about 130 articles in this series, but I quit counting at 100. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an unremarkable manufacturing facility. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to The Lego Group as per WP:ATD-M. The suggested merge target article has no mention of this former major production facility, and a merge will improve the article. Also, I'm a bit baffled by the !vote above where it states that we should simply delete articles because there are too many to merge. This has no grounding in deletion policy at all. This notion also assumes that none of the other lego-related topics with articles are notable, without providing any qualification for this ideation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bernhard Berset[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 22:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete officers of this rank are rarely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Test pilots may be notable irrespective of their rank, however it does not appear this individual rises up to SIGCOV (though he has some COV - more than the average lt. col).Icewhiz (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet BLP notability requirements. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 18:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:13, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Cogan[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a film producer. While producing an Academy Award winning film is a valid claim of notability if the article is sourced properly, it is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to have reliable source coverage just because it's been stated -- but the three footnotes here all nominally verify the film's existence while completely failing to even mention Cogan's name at all. Note as well that two of the film's other three producers do not have Wikipedia articles (and the one who does was also the film's director, and has sufficient RS coverage for that fact). No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can source him much better than this, but the sourcing here isn't cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have now provided substantial references and all name Dan Cogan and his work extensively. Nauriya, let's talk - 20:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Nauriya: At the moment all the references seem to be for the film Icarus. If this was the only reason why Cogan is notable, then perhaps his page should be merged with that of the film. I note other articles about Cogan, e.g. this one discussing his financing of Indie films [1], this one [2], this one [3] etc. Cogan is listed by the BFI [4] If the Cogan article was modified to include coverage of Cogan other than Icarus, then this would build the case for an independent article on Cogan. Given the coverage I've found in addition to the coverage due to Icarus, I think that Cogan justifies a page. Ross-c (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the sources provided by Ross-c, only this is significant coverage. wumbolo ^^^ 09:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist because there has been meaningful discussion of the refs since the second relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K Republic[edit]

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

Article on a band has had no sources for the preceding five years. A BEFORE search on Google News and Google Books fails to find any. Article claims they were featured in Rolling Stone, but I can't find any mention on the RS website. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search revealed no reliable secondary sources, fails WP:GNG. Their offical website can't even be reached. ~ Araratic | talk 05:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBAND. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources are linked to the article and not even the band's own website is in operation. There's a good chance the band doesn't even exist anymore, and the completely lack of reliable sources (I couldn't find anything after searching for a few minutes), suggests the subject fails WP:NMUSIC.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 02:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 18:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and WP:NBAND Fail AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:14, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Express[edit]

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

Small airline company that doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG, unless all airlines regardless of coverage or size are automatically notable for this site, which I am not sure if that is the case. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 21:36, 11 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 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 12 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) 01:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 09:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - directory refs only, advertisement, 2 planes. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not come up to Wikipedia's style requirements.TH1980 (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deletedelete, signifant RS coverage not found. Does not meet WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 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 delete. Seems like the current article is unsalvageable and there are concerns that the material is not adequately sourced to justify a merger. Repurposing the article can be done even after it's deleted (by writing a new topic), seems like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Underworld (comics)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Appears nine times according to Marvel Wikia Namenamenamenamename (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: U. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No information from reliable secondary sources to merge. At the very most, a disambiguation page to differentiate the character from various organisations and locations (Criminal Underworld/Underworld Unleashed/Underworlders from Superman comics/etc), or an article on the series the character appeared in, if notability can be demonstrated. Killer Moff (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the character isn't notable, but the article could be re-worked to cover the self-titled miniseries from 2006. Being a Marvel publication from the time of the internet, reviews of this work should be assumed to exist, although the generic name makes them harder to find. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, a move discussion sounds like the next best step. BOZ (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the character and do not create a disambiguation page. The entire article is currently in-universe and unsourced. The "Criminal Underworld/Underworld Unleashed/Underworlders from Superman comics/etc" mentioned above by Killer Moff does not validate a disambiguation page per WP:PTM. wumbolo ^^^ 09:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 19:58, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Rogers[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Right now I am leaning toward delete, but this is a common name so I don't know if I am having trouble finding sources because they are not notable, or there is just too many other people that share the name. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 01:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 19:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable professional wrestler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Common coverage similar to many other wrestlers. More coverage is needed. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks reliable independent sources demonstrating notability, so it fails WP:GNG. Primary sources and routine coverage just don't cut it. She retired years ago, so evidently there won't be anymore coverage of her wrestling career that could be added later, not that that would justify keeping the article now. This article is presently serving more as a memorial to her past career then anything of notable encyclopedic merit. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 00:49, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Placone[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. A Google search turns up nothing in reliable sources. I get 87 Google hits for his name in quotation marks, much of which is his various social media stuff. The current article is entirely self-referenced. Bueller 007 (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (tal

k) 06:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Dom from Paris (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comedians and radio personalities are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because their existence can technically be referenced to their own self-published web presence — the notability test is media coverage about them in sources they're not directly affiliated with, but this shows none of that whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article contains only primary and affiliated sources, and independent reliable sources demonstrating this man's notability could not be found, so it clearly fails WP:GNG. A performer being able to reference their own self-published material does not grant notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:49, 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 delete. Copyright issues with images should probably be addressed at WP:CCI, WP:FFD or commons:Commons:Deletion requests Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Arana[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NMODEL. No significant coverage in secondary sources. No large fan base or following. Brycehughes (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that this article has been edited by several single purpose accounts and their likely sockpuppets, including Hitmanasm (talk · contribs), HitmanASM (talk · contribs), Raider nation pro (talk · contribs), Radernationpro (talk · contribs), SportsTalkPro (talk · contribs), Macpro77 (talk · contribs), Macbookpro77 (talk · contribs), Krystinawoods (talk · contribs), Airicka42677 (talk · contribs), Code597fan (talk · contribs), and Hannsg00 (talk · contribs). Many of these users show similar/overlapping edit behavior with Jarrod Cooper, and/or suggest a close affiliation in their edit summaries. Some of these users have uploaded images to Wikipedia and Commons, which should be checked for valid copyrights. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no significant coverage of her in secondary sources, so the article fails WP:NMODEL. With Animalparty's comment in mind, this article seems nothing more then a promotional/fluff piece about the individual in question, where there is even a need to glorify the subjects time in high school. Such rubbish is not encyclopedic. The promotional/fluff nature of this article is further bolstered by the five glamorous pictures of her in this tiny article, and the links to her social media accounts. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:15, 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. As noted by Irn, meeting GNG is sufficient even if NACTOR or MUSICBIO aren't met, see WP:BASIC. I don't think we have consensus that articles on notable topics but created by sockpuppets are to be deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JC Gonzalez[edit]

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

Despite an effort to throw a bunch of sources at the reader (most of which only contain incidental mentions of the subject), this subject does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR. The only role that looks like it might be "significant" in NACTOR terms is Los Americans, but other roles appear to be simple guest appearances or are non-notable. So doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR #1. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article was also created by a checkuser-blocked editor – see Special:Contributions/Siddfatima. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes the GNG: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] -- irn (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I still want to see how it passes WP:NACTOR or WP:MUSICBIO – one "significant" acting role not "multiple", and have any of his songs "charted" anywhere?! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that his roles are not significant and that he doesn't seem to have much notability, but if the article passes GNG, it doesn't have to also pass NACTOR or MUSICBIO. What matters is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and we have that. -- irn (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commment CAPTAIN RAJUDoes not belong in artists sort. See top of page:"Please add MUSIC-related discussions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music, not here."ThatMontrealIP (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article shows several sources where you can verify the prominence that the artist has had in different scenarios 190.1.204.200 (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pass: GNG: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]

I agree, he might not be that much famouse or Notable on the Movies and tele series shown on the page, but he passes the GNG Criteria which means that he don't also needs to pass the WP:NACTOR or WP:MUSICBIO criteria. As you can see the Links above, He got significant coverage in reliable sources. --Choky1995 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choky1995 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that these are the exact same sources that Irn already cited above, so this adds nothing new to the discussion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:54, 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. No consensus for a particular outcome has occurred in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014 North American cold wave[edit]

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

The meat of the article documents a winter storm already covered at November 13–21, 2014 North American winter storm. The rest of the article has empty sections for other areas and impacts that have not been filled since February 2015. No particular notability for a few cold days in winter. Calling this the "worst cold wave since earlier same year" is just bizarre. Wikipedia is not the Weather Channel. — JFG ^talk 10:00, 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 Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 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]

Strong Oppose for all – absolutely no reason to even consider this and the others for deletion. They describe historic weather events that caused a lot of issues in the US/North America. Each one garnered a lot of headlines in the news, especially when the very snowy pattern that each caused. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 11:52, 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]
Strongly Oppose for all – Nominating all of these articles for deletion is ridiculous. I concur with the opinion of MarioProtIV above. These are notable weather events, some of which were historic in nature with significant news coverage. These are all significant weather events with notable impacts within their respective regions - and might I mention that the Weather Channel does not even constitute the majority of sources for these articles. Each article is also reliably sourced, and I think that the sources should speak for themselves and hold precedence over our own personal opinions. LightandDark2000 (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hear the opinion of other editors on this topic as well: @Master of Time, Hurricanehink, Knowledgekid87, Inks.LWC, and Jax 0677:. LightandDark2000 (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why these people in particular? Please refrain from WP:CANVASSING. — JFG ^talk 13:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This event occurred weeks before the formal onset of winter. If an event receives enough given coverage at a given time, regardless of whether it is often referred to after the matter, it deserves to be covered. I'm sure most weather articles on Wikipedia don't receive extended lasting coverage, even the really significant ones. Additionally, I wouldn't want to lose information pertaining to the aftermath of Typhoon Nuri and the November 2014 Bering Sea cyclone, which is noteworthy. All that said, this article does have some significant deficiencies. If a compelling argument were made / draft created, maybe the articles could be merged in some sense, but I don't know of any precedent for doing such a thing (cold wave + winter storm). Master of Time (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 10:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The event broke several seconds and contributed to terrible winter storms. It also took place before winter even started making Steven more unusual. A simple AFD-cleanup tag would be better than deletion. AmericanAir88 (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A continent-wide natural disaster that killed large numbers of people (at least 28). James500 (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the material in the article can be (and largely is) sufficiently covered in the November 13–21, 2014 North American winter storm and 2014–15 North American winter articles. I don’t see how keeping the page even for a redirect would be all that helpful, as I doubt there are too many people going directly to the current article. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article overlaps two other articles as stated above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The material in this article is generally already covered in two other articles, so it is redundant to keep this article. Also, the fact that the article has been largely incomplete for over three years speaks to how it was created with an over-inflated storm impact in mind. Wikipedia is not the Weather channel and countless storms break weather records, have unique quirks, or kill people so this article is not needed on this encyclopedia. Weather events commonly impact large areas, so the dozens of routine sources in this article do not confer everlasting notability onto this event. It's simply life on Earth. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per MarioProtIV. 208.54.87.254 (talk) 06:24, 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. Ad issues are already tagged. If desired, a separate merge discussion can be held. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas Academy of Mathematics and Science[edit]

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

promotional and non notable Promotional -- regardless of whether that was the intent-- because 1) it is exactly like a web page for the group--it says what the organization would like to say about itself, rather than what a general reader might like to know. 2)much of it is addressed to students or prospective students in the program Non notable because there are no external references and it seems like nothing is available that provides substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and scrub for promotional Program has appeared multiple times in local papers [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] They did have some news coverage from a student suicide [22] If there's not much left, merge to Fort Hays State University AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article on Fort Hays State University. No justification for a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is about a notable topic and any cleanup for its content is an editing issue, not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge significant content to Fort Hays State University. Rzvas (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources available to meet WP:GNG. A merge to Fort Hays State University would be inappropriate. KAMS is an independent programme and is simply in Fort Hays State University for board and lodging purposes only. Just Chilling (talk) 22:43, 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 snow delete. I was the administrator who declined the blatant hoax tag, so it seems only fitting that I should now delete it. Whether a hoax or not, it can't possibly satisfy WP:GNG, as the comments below either state or imply. Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boehm syndrome[edit]

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

No credible sources since 2005. Very likely hoax. More info at Special:PermanentLink/856475275#More eyes please. -- RexxS (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt. This was bad. There is only one ref here that mentions this condition. It is the "Websters" dictionary entry. NOTE that that this is not "the" Websters which is https://www.merriam-webster.com/ but rather "Webster's Online Dictionary" which a) now dead per http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org and per Philip_M._Parker#Online_dictionary, was curated by one guy. In any case, the link is actually to an archived version of the page, here. "Boehm syndrome" is listed in the "Common Expressions" section, as the third entry. It says there "references", If you click on the reference, it comes here (actually the URL there is www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/Boehm+Syndrome#Wikipedia which dies instead of directing for me at least). There are no MEDRS refs in pubmed. Shenanigans. There is nothing "borderline" here.Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not meet any criteria required for keeping an article and is almost certainly a clever hoax.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find information about this in medical literature, which makes this extremely unlikely to exist. Natureium (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the rationale I provided at WikiProject Medicine § More eyes please (permanent link), which is also linked in the nomination statement. To briefly recapitulate: This is an article about a purported medical condition for which any web search in any place consistently yields zero results when discounting for circular reporting, including the one mere mention in an information pamphlet that was published almost a decade after this article was created. Throughout the over 13 years since it was created, the article has proudly cited exactly zero sources to support it (unless you count Yahoo! Answers as one)—really, I checked all 47 revisions! Unless this ophthalmologic condition involves upper limb malformations, I anticipate the temperature to drop any moment now. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a "Boehme syndrome" (note spelling) mentioned in "Genes in Eyecare" from the University of Waterloo, but without any helpful details. SpinningSpark 00:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did another series of searches using that alternative spelling and they all returned fewer results, as in the ones that were non-zero began returning as zero. You probably noticed this as well. Nonetheless, thanks for your diligence, Spinningspark. I had not considered alternative spellings like that. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also tried "Böhm" and "Bōhme" as German "ö" is often transliterated as "oe". But be warned that my security software blocked an attack from schnarchen.gw-siemerode.de which has a number of results for those terms. SpinningSpark 08:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I came to this article looking to improve it, but didn't find a single reliable (any) source. CV9933 (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparent hoax that totally fails WP:V and WP:GNG, among other guidelines. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 14:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete Complete and total fabrication. THE DIAZ ^{userpage • talk • contribs} 19:44, 26 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Top Media[edit]

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

Unsourced article appears to be making a notability claim based on WP:INHERITED. A standard BEFORE (Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com, JSTOR) does not unearth sources. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Not even sqwiki has more information (which may not be a good sign). Try searching for Albanian-language sources nonetheless. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody with Albanian-language skills can do better than this. Media companies are not handed an automatic free exemption from having to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing just because of who owns them or what assets the article happens to list — rather, they're judged by the same inclusion standards as any other company: namely, that they're reliably sourceable to enough media coverage about them to clear GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. If somebody who can read Albanian can find the right sources to write a better article than this, then great — but this isn't the article or the sourcing that gets the company through the wikidoor, and I'm not the guy who can fix it. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yuki Kato (footballer)[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence player passes WP:NFOOTBALL and fails WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:07, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiho Nakayama[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was [He] does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football. This remains valid as Nakayama has still not played in a fully professional league. He has also not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence player passes WP:NFOOTBALL and fails WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Adamtt9 (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:16, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stavros Fasoulas[edit]

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

Unnotable BLP, fails WP:SIGCOV. Lordtobi (✉) 15:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article's only source is a book that briefly mentions this individual and his largely unsuccessful time as a minor Finnish game developer many years ago. A search turns up no significant reliable sources demonstrating notability, so this article violates WP:GNG. Half of it is also unsourced and may be untrue, so there are serious WP:BLP concerns here as well. Wikipedia should not be making unfounded claims about people, especially possibly contentious ones like he put his career on hold to serve in the Finnish military. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:17, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Kalupa[edit]

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

Non-notable actress with mostly minor roles and no coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NACTOR. Natureium (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and the WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails both WP:GNG and the WP:NACTRESS because she has only received limited converge for minor roles. In addition, one of her sources is IMDB, which is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. The article also doesn't comply with standard Wikipedia page setup guidelines. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:12, 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 delete. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serenity Payload[edit]

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

A buzzword for a Lockheed weapons system that appears to be non-notable; article is promotional. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the Payload bit in the title is not useful for BEFOREing nor does it seem to be the product name. The product name is Serenity (awful keyword - needs to be filtered with acoustic or sensor). The manufacturer isn't Lockheed (it's Logos Technologies AFAICT). The system itself probably is notable - the question here is more if this needs a dose of TNT.Icewhiz (talk) 14:46, 12 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]

Comment, so its not about how much cargo Serenity can carry? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NPRODUCT; promotional article, even including the pricing. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-promotional article including a major technology currently in use by the US Department of Defense in warfare worldwide. Rafreyna (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are all to military industry niche publications, so fails WP:AUD. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Daask (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article seems promotional in nature due to it focusing heavily on how great the product is, mentioning the price, and apparent insider jargon like masts and aerostats the average reader wouldn't understand. It also fails WP:NPRODUCT because it fails to demonstrate notability in any way, such as how many units has the U.S. military bought or what effect it has had on the U.S. military in practice. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:38, 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 merge to List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom. Consensus is to merge to the "Notes" column for the relevant row in the table in the target article. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 15:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pont Abraham services[edit]

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

~~Delete~~ per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 July 8#Motorway service stations in the United Kingdom ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 10:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—I have changed my mind. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 10:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete and redirect to List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doncaster North services outcome. Mangoe (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a service station and a few shops. Absolutely nothing of significance. Ajf773 (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG, just as Doncaster North services did. Imzadi 1979 → 21:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 01:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nom's rationale is unclear, the log it links to is a discussion re templates relating to the article, which says nothing regarding the article itself. If the nominator elaborates on their statement, I will reconsider. Failing that however, redirect per Coolbahapple. Nightfury 15:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, note also this is the second nomination, I have added a link to the first AfD. Nightfury 15:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Proposers reason for deletion make no case for deletion, as it merely cross-references a discussion on the deletion of a template, which has no relevance to the current discussion.-- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gareth Griffith-Jones. If you're intending to withdraw the nomination, because of outstanding delete votes we cannot close it early. We also need your original nomination statement on the page, I shall re-add this for you. Btw, do you have a reason for the change of vote? Nightfury 14:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply—Yes, I have withdrawn the nomination following reading the contributions above. My reason is that I must have misunderstood this edit; 03:04, July 24, 2018‎ User:MarnetteD (talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,690 bytes) (-14) rmv per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 July 8#Motorway service stations in the United Kingdom. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 08:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. British motorway service stations are established by statute. They are not just truck stops as some seem to think they are. They are significant, legally enshrined complexes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's at the statute level here, but rest stops are creations of the government in the USA as well, which is as irrelevant here as it is there. Mangoe (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Of the two sources cited in the article, one is the operator's website and the other is a page with an "edit" link. Search doesn't find much - local news coverage of an application for planning permission (http://www.southwalesguardian.co.uk/news/15306090.Plans_submitted_for_Costa_Coffee_drive-thru_at_services/) or where it is only mentioned in news coverage. Peter James (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the notes section for its listing at List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom. Source searches are not providing a whole lot to qualify a standalone article, but merging will enhance the suggested merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete outright or merge/redirect to List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 15:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom as per North America]] - No evidence of notability to warrant an article however IMHO the content can and should be added to the table, –Davey2010^Talk 15:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. Satisfies GEOLAND as a legally recognised populated place. These are indeed created by legislation (IIRC, the purpose is to prevent urban sprawl or something like that). James500 (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a populated place-- nobody lives there. It's just a rest stop with businesses. Mangoe (talk) 19:44, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emily McDowell Studio[edit]

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

Sources are unreliable and trivial (closest to RS, Bloomberg, is just a press release). Guy (Help!) 14:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article, does not seem to pass WP:GNG. --MarioGom (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails WP:GNG because its sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage and significant reliable sources could not be located when I searched for them. The article has also been heavily promotional in nature from its inception. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:58, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kazusa Iwasaki[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator based on a claim that he will play in future and on the number links in the article. Claims to notability based on future appearances have been consistently rejected, and the links listed are routine coverage, insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable Japaneese footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:21, 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. Consensus is also to move to Thomas More in Prison, Visited by His Wife and Daughter. It may be shortened, or otherwise modified, after discussion on the talk page. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 17:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas More, Lord High Chancellor of England[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for the painting found in a search, fails WP:GNG. Article deprodded without the issue being addressed, claim of notability not substantiated despite being requested. Hzh (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; I can't find any coverage other than a few photos of the artwork. I oppose a redirect to Claudius Jacquand or Thomas More here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Claudius Jacquand, per policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How would anyone know that this is a painting and not about Thomas More? A redirect to the artist would merely cause confusion, especially when someone is looking for Thomas more which is the more likely reason to search for the name. It had on average less than one view per day after its creation, compared to Thomas More which is in the thousands, and it is possible that some of the few views it had might be people clicking by mistake looking for Thomas More. Hzh (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is a reasonable one but the solution is found by changing the title, not by deletion. I suppose "Painting of Thomas More, Lord High Chancellor of England" would do but I don't know if there is a standard way of doing things. I found Portrait of the Duke of Wellington when I was pondering this. Deletion is the last thing we do, not the first. Thincat (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (but don't delete) to Claudius Jacquand. Change the title to show it is a painting, not the person. Thincat (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing it to "Painting of Thomas More, Lord High Chancellor of England" doesn't help, people will just confuse it with the famous one Portrait of Sir Thomas More (Holbein). This one so little known that hardly anyone will be actively looking for it. Hzh (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Painting of Thomas More (Jacquand) redirecting to Claudius Jacquand and include the redirect in Thomas More (disambiguation). Thincat (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:CHEAP as suggested. The Lyons fine arts museum is a great collection. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The actual title of the painting is Thomas More en prison, per the museum where it is held. Of course, the same page calls it or a similar painting Thomas Morus, grand chancelier d’Angleterre (1828). Which brings up the question of why we would be using translated titles of the original work as article titles. Multiple 19C sources also use the Thoman Morus spelling, and mention prison. Perhaps this information will help someone to sort it all out. All in all, this is not a notable painting by sourcing, and no regular reader will ever be looking for it. 96.127.244.27 (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we certainly should be using translated titles of the original work as article titles - as per WP:VAMOS. Otherwise we'd get things like Иван Грозный и сын его Иван 16 ноября 1581 года! Never mind Japanese stuff. Johnbod (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good explanation, thank you. I don't agree with the policy but will follow it.96.127.244.27 (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, References have been added, an editor has added References. Yay. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References do not necessarily indicate notability. Notability requires sources that provide significant coverage per WP:GNG, and the sources given appear to give only passing mentions, and do not demonstrate notability. Hzh (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the Mona Lisa or Guernica, and the artist is not Da Vinci or Picasso, but it is still a substantial work by a notable artist, held by a fairly significant public collection. Sources in English are thin, but then this is a painting by a (notable but) second rank French artist held for nearly 200 years in a (significant but) provincial French museum, so what do you expect. There is some background and a thorough description over four pages here (in French): [23]; and it is one of four paintings by Jacquand specifically mentioned in his entry in Larousse,[24] so clearly one of the more important works in his oeuvre. 213.205.240.163 (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename per the 1832 source to "Thomas More in Prison, Visited by his Wife and Daughter" (translated), a much better title, and avoiding confusion. Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I have struck my !vote above). The references now are sufficient to retain this as a basis for developing the article. Jonbod's suggestion above for a page title is better than my suggestions. Thincat (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the latter source in article seems to provide a good amount of coverage. One that I can't access also indicates it might provide decent coverage. I don't feel qualified to judge on better names, so leave that to those better suited. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion is needed about the recently added references.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 14:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But perhaps retitle the article to reflect how it is about a painting of Thomas More.TH1980 (talk) 00:28, 26 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Petracca[edit]

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

Most of the citations don't mention him at all. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing WP:RS. Fails WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Narky Blert here , Article fails WP:NBIO without any reliable sources and no significant coverage about the subject . Kpg jhp jm 15:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is not accurate to say that there are zero reliable sources. GScholar indicates that his works have the kind of citations that we use for determining whether an academic meets WP:PROF. His book "Common Culture" has gone through at least seven editions, which is an indicator of lasting popularity (WP:TBK). There is some commentary on it, such as [25] [26] (p 25 [27]). Similarly there is a Kirkus review of Doctor Syntax (cumulative index) and another review in American Bookseller [28] (p 79). I haven't done an exhaustive search yet, but the multiple reviews (or similar commentary) criteria is already met by those. There are also more than eight hundred library holdings of his books: [29], with "Common Culture" being very widely held. James500 (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enlighten me. These are the tests defined in WP:NPROF:

The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the IEEE).[2]
The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).
The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.

Please specify which of those tests he passes. Because, I cannot see that he passes any of them at all. Feel free to suggest more than one... Narky Blert (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say he passes PROF. I said he had reliable citations of the kind that we use to assess PROF. I am not sure whether or not he passes PROF, because I am not sure what level of citation is typical for his field. He does however satisfy WP:AUTHOR with multiple periodical reviews etc. James500 (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I did not say he passes PROF." Yes you did, or your argument was 100% Mustelidae. Narky Blert (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I can't find reviews of his writing texts, but there's a case to be made for WP:PROF#C4 through widespread use of his books Reading Popular Culture and Common Culture as texts at various universities. His novel Doctor Syntax has multiple published reviews, not enough for WP:AUTHOR by itself but contributing to notability nonetheless. And I found an in-depth profile of him in the LA Times, also discussing both novels, which by itself (because only one piece) is not quite enough for WP:GNG but again contributing, and a piece in the Santa Barbara Independent which is too brief and local to count for much but still adds detail to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per David Eppstein: this appears to be a case where multiple not-quite-threshold contributions, which would not make a good case for notability individually, get over the bar together. XOR'easter (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: scrapes by on elements of GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Sufficient for a stub, per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:41, 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 merge to Sarsai Nawar. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 09:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hajari Mahadev Temple[edit]

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

Subject is an Indian temple. A WP:BEFORE found no WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS to establish subject notability. Fails WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: There is nothing to indicate that the subject is notable. Willondon (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG . Kpg jhp jm 16:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge with Sarsai Nawar, the Article of the village where this temple is located. The temple has several mentions in mainstream media [30] so a WP:REDIRECT is a valid WP:ATD for a search term. The temple lacks the WP:SIGCOV to merit its own article for now. Courtesy pinging User:Kpgjhpjm and Willondon if they want to reconsider and agree with a redirect. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 14:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge. I agree with and have nothing to add to DBigXray's argument for that course of action. Narky Blert (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge Agree with DBigXray's comments here . Kpg jhp jm 15:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge: DBigXray's suggestion makes sense to me. Willondon (talk) 01:21, 26 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) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taki (Soulcalibur)[edit]

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

Fancruft. A redirect to the list of characters is enough. TheLongTone (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 12:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 12:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the article is kept, this needs to be trimmed way down. Way too much in-universe story details and pointless details. There’s no way a general encyclopedia should be tracking all this minutiae about how her measurements/bust sizes (!?) have changed over the years, descriptions of all these different outfits she’s warn, etc. Making a determination on notability itself will take more time from me, as this seems to be a massive case of WP:BOMBARD at first glance... Sergecross73 msg me 14:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "descriptions of all these different outfits she’s warn" (sic) - it isn't even there. Here's where it actually is (in pictures, since https://soulcalibur.wikia.com/wiki/Taki/Original_Timeline#Costumes is just empty): https://soulcalibur.wikia.com/wiki/Taki/Gallery (there's been over a dozen). As for "measurements", I'll give to you about the weight - actually the blood type would be more important (it's not there, but it's A), becuase of how huge this is in Japanese culture. Also no lol. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rest assured, everything I said is in there, is in there. But if you refuse to acknowledge it in there, I’m sure you’ll have no problem when it’s trimmed out down the line. Sergecross73 msg me 03:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most of "all these different outfits she’s warn" are not even mentioned, and these not mentioned are not named - only SC Woman is named, but only because it was widely[31] (and elsewhere not on tyhis list, like[32][33] etc.) reported. I removed the weight (and added the blood type). Btw I actually have a lot of Japanese print material on the costumes and such from books and mags, but I have a difficult time translating it (I should really ask someone to do it for me). And as for measurements, even the "good Article" Li Long has the height, despite this having not been commented on (Taki's was, in the book [34]). And as for "plot" (which you didn't me examples of your problems), Li Long's "Good Article" not only isn't much less detailed than this (compared only around 1-4 sentences for each main game in Taki's case) but manages to be confusing and inadequate by just not explaining things enough - actually only Taki's article provides explanation for things who was this "a woman named Chie" and the line "on the run from assassins sent by his former employer" that misleadingly suggests it's about the Chinese Emperor is just false (Taki's article explains what and why really happens - Li Long article's odd "While out one day, a fight broke out at the inn" is also directly related to Taki-Toki-Chie story). But that's a "Good Article" somehow - despite the reference using for it (this: [35]) being just mistranslated from Japanese! I just fixed this glorious Good Article by correcting disinformation: [36] and I suggest for you to try constructive things like that, instead of what you do. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not exactly sure what you’re accusing me of, as I haven’t advocated deletion, and merely stated that the article is overly detailed, and needs trimming/cleanup, a sentiment shared with virtually all participants in this AFD as of writing this. Sergecross73 msg me 11:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, I'm sorry. So I've cleanup-rewritten it for -3 KB overall (some stuff added but much more removed), but I just don't think what you call "plot" can be any radically less detailed without missing in my opinion essential details. Li Long's "good article" wasn't (and still isn't) even much less detailed while at the same time managed to be a "goof article". It could EASILY be so much more detailed, like https://soulcalibur.wikia.com/wiki/Taki/Original_Timeline#Biography plus https://soulcalibur.wikia.com/wiki/Taki#Personality for example ("great schemer"? didn't say it's WELL written!). --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's not fancruft. The article incorporates conceptual design, and other encyclopedic information. I agree with Sergecross73 that it needs to be trimmed, which can be done by copy editors, and/or collaboration among interested parties. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding info cited to IGN's "SOULCALIBUR: THE TOP TEN FIGHTERS", "Taki is one of the stalwart mainstays of the Soul series. Even more so, as she is the only fighter to actually be playable in all six games. Everyone loves a good ninja, and Taki just so happens to be one of the best."

*Keep: The article itself cites sources to prove the subject's notability. The article requires clean-up and work, but that is definitely not a reason to nominate it for an AfD. Aoba47 (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep but trim way down per Sergecross73 (also fine with Redirect as a secondary option). A few of the sources (e.g. UGO, FHM) are both RS and discuss the character outside the context of the games, but this is really on the edge. Chetsford (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Chetsford. Nomader (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP; and everyone please note it's a part of a weird, extremely aggresive, totally unprovoked (our very first interaction: [37]), and selective (only this article, and not for example Li Long that only appeared in 2 games in this series (Taki's in 8, 7 of these playable, not counting spin-off games and guest appearances) and is actually even a "Good Article" despite only having a fraction of references) attack on me TheLongTone that began when I just did as asked/requested to do (see here: [38]) 3 months earlier and finally split Siegfried. This was preceded by blatant vandalism when he just deleted the article without asking anyone (and I did report this act of vandalism, but this didn't have a real effect apparently as he's not quite gone away / blocked / whatever). I'd really like his to be sanctioned in some way. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh puh-leeese. I WP:BEBOLD changed an overlong heap of fancruft back into a redirect. Than is not vandalism; my cited comment was a response to fanboi's revert of that edit.TheLongTone (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI is thataway ⤴️ ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It's a lie and he's lying. Proof: [39] (time: 13:54) vs [40] (time: 14:00). His actual (quote) "response to fanboi's revert" was this, this time in the style a threat of physical violence: [41] (time: 14:03; quote: "You are cruising for a bruising. Grow up, as quickly as you can.") SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By cruising for a bruising I meant that snake's behavior was likely to result in sanctions. I fail to see how it could be construed as athreat of physical violence, since even if it is possible to deliver a slapped wrist or even the dreaded Rear Admiral over the internet my technological knowledge is not up to it. Their hysterical behavior underlines their need to mature a bit, altho I don't see it happening.12:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I said "in the style a threat of physical violence" - if I said he's "gonna get raped", would it also going to be ignored because I can't actually penetrate him over the internet and it's only in the style of sexual violence threat? Is "You are cruising for a bruising. Grow up, as quickly as you can" just a normal and approved way to talk to each other on Wikipedia - while complaining about that is "hysterical behavior", and also calmly editing without breaking any rules or arguing with anyone, having been specifically asked by another editor (requested publicly, without anyone opposing this idea for months), "likely to result in sanctions"? And is that "BEBOLD" to be his excuse also to having just (boldly) lie to everyone? That's some questions for everyone here. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you translate the above into English, please?TheLongTone (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to try to in any way excuse having just lied here, or are you just going to let me and everybody assume the worst about it? And are you going to provide an alternative excuse for your initial outburst of abuse against me, without me doing anything at all (having been busy researching for further editing, and only learning about your existence from your instant threats on my talk page)? SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valid or not, comments on editor conduct generally don't belong here at WP:AFD. Take it to WP:ANI if you wish to argue about that. Sergecross73 msg me 19:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73:, pinging you to intervene in this discussion. It's getting out of hand. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stand-alone notability has been proven. Trim the fat. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. --GRuban (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to allow cleanup or reduction of text, without raising debate to wp:DRV. To avoid further conflicts, then wp:SNOW-close this AfD as Keep, and advise to debate further at: "Talk:Taki (Soulcalibur)#Shorten". There is no deadline, so encourage shorter text by discuss for weeks at article talkpage. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to series character list or delete. I'd love to see the specific references/links upon which everyone above asserts this character's notability independent from others in the series. As far as I can tell, the character is only covered in context of other series characters (meaning that we should cover the character proportionately in the existing list of series characters), in "top 10 babe" articles (which is not significant coverage nevertheless worthy of being linked in an encyclopedia at all), or in patently unreliable sources. Refbombing is a strategy to obscure that the article isn't about much of anything at all. Remove the sources that mention the character in passing and what's left? Lack of content is beyond mere "cleanup". Some of these paragraphs could be reduced to a single sentence and lose no important information. Indeed, that's what they would need to be coherent for a general audience, our intended readership. czar 10:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be opposed to a redirect, but I do not think it should be deleted as it is a viable search term. Aoba47 (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article direly needs to be cleaned up, but even then there's enough notability presented by many of the better sources to keep it around.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which? czar 04:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of the kind like the all 6 from the related Good Article Li Long, presumably. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

? That isn't the article under discussion. Of this Taki article's 195 sources, which provide significant coverage so as to show independent notability from the rest of the series characters?

"Stand-alone notability has been proven." @Soetermans
"article itself cites sources to prove the subject's notability" @Aoba47
"there's enough notability presented by many of the better sources to keep it around" @Kung Fu Man

Where is the evidence for these claims? A handful of links with brief rationale would suffice, but vague waving at sources does not. czar 12:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how my rationale is "vague waving at sources" as you put it, as I clearly state that I believe the sources currently used in the article support its notability. We may disagree on it, but my statement was not vague. Aoba47 (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...not providing specifics when prompted is the definition of vague. In fact, the logical conclusion is that the above editors are more impressed by reams of mere mentions than any source that actually, reliably asserts the standalone importance of the character, as there is no evidence of the latter. This AfD shows a shameful lack of due diligence. czar 12:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A shameful lack of due diligence"? That is a new one lol. I believe that further investigation should go into Japanese source given this is a character from a Japanese video game franchise; there could be possible be more information there, but I am uncertain due to the language barrier. Upon further examination of the sources, I am uncertain about the character's notability for a stand-alone article. However, I do not believe that deletion is the answer, as this is a viable source. I think that a redirect and selective merge to List of Soulcalibur characters would be a far better answer than a deletion, if consensus goes against the character having a standalone article. I have struck my keep vote, but I am not going to cast a further/different vote either way; I had previously cast the vote due to the sources in the "Design and characteristics" section. I had felt at the time those sources satisfied notability (just a further explanation of my previous vote). Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Many of the keep votes don't focus on specific sources. Further discussion is required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 14:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has a good balance between real world and in-universe information. There is both positive and negative reception, the gameplay is mentioned from designer's point of view and there is some good creation information. I don't know if there's an example to follow but I think it surpasses the needs of notability.Tintor2 (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TarkusAB^talk 15:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The rationale was poor and feels like WP:IDONTLIKEIT as well as being a WP:VAGUEWAVE. The article is well referenced and there's nothing wrong with articles about fictional characters._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:41, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Logtrust[edit]

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

A striking unsourced claim and lots of press releases. Aaaand... that's about it. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Guy. He is very kind in his description. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not meet WP:NCORP. It also fails WP:GNG because it lacks significant reliable sources. It is also promotional in nature and obviously lacks any encyclopedic merit. The nominator was indeed kind in his description. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:21, 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 delete. It looks like there is no actual evidence of significant coverage, just the assertion that it does exist and sources that appear to be passing mentions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suzi Pomerantz[edit]

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

Yet another spammy PR/auto biography of yet another motivational speaker, with yet more references based on press releases. Guy (Help!) 14:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete a non-notable "executive coach".John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep Ms. Pomerantz is a very notable business woman, contrary to what John Pack Lambert claims. She is one of the top leaders in her field of executive coaching having received numerous awards over many years. Her references include the Washington Business Journal, Washington Post, Forbes, and Smart CEO Magazine, among others.

  She is not a motivational speaker and her references are not based on press releases, as Guy claims. Does her article say "motivational speaker?" No, it does not.  Why would you make these things up?

I’ve read that it is hard for a woman business person to get a Wikipedia page. Perhaps it’s true that there is bias against women having pages on Wikipedia. Flyingbrook (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Flyingbrook (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Flyingbrook (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No, only against people abusing Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Her references include the Washington Business Journal, Washington Post, Forbes, Smart CEO...
Going by titles alone: passing mention; passing mention; Not Forbes, a press release from a affiliated service; passing mention. It's called "Churnalism, chum. --Calton | Talk 02:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Calton | Talk 02:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entire article is heavily promotional and designed to exalt the individual it is about, not inform readers about non-existent encyclopedia worthy notable information. The creator of the article also tried to use alleged sexism against women on Wikipedia as an excuse to save the article from deletion. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:38, 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 Seventy (LDS Church)#First Quorum of the Seventy. It would be easy to close this as delete, but the suggestion to redirect makes a lot of sense to me, per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. Moreover, I suspect the only reason it didn't get more support is that it was made so late in the discussion. I'm guessing that had such an apropos redirect target been suggested earlier, it would have found support. If anybody feels the redirect is harmful, my feelings won't be hurt if you take it to WP:RfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos A. Aidukaitis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(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 short passing mentions, directory listings, short quotations from the subject and name checks. Not finding any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The primary sources in the article and found in searches do not serve to establish notability. See also: WP:SPIP:

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

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The arguments presented in the last deletion discussion on this subject remain valid. It remains clear that he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Subjects that the LDS church find to be noteworthy are not automatically notable as per Wikipedia's standards. Mormon subjects and leaders do not get a free pass for an article based upon the concept of presumed notability, because no guideline or policy exists to qualify this sort of automatic notability. As such, multiple independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject are needed to qualify notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Furthermore, a previous discussion on the Notability (people) talk page in 2016, located here, regarding the notion of LDS church and other religious organization leaders being granted presumed notability on Wikipedia was widely opposed, with a consensus to not add a stipulation regarding said presumption of notability to the guideline page. Sorry, but the !vote above is rooted entirely in personal opinion, not Wikipedia guidelines or policies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: North America, that is precisely the problem. In Wikipedia's notability standards, there is no established exception for LDS general authority seventies. That is not for lack of trying. In prior deletion discussions, the issue of establishing such subjects as notable was discussed extensively, but almost every time, people participating in the discussion of that subject in the section(s) to which I was referred by those participating in such discussions indicated that those sections were not the correct place to raise this issue. I have therefore been given the run-around. This creates an enormous paradox: the subjects of these articles are notable precisely because of the service they render to the Church and its' worldwide membership, and if they were not in the positions through which such service were rendered, they would be no more notable to the Church or anywhere else than someone like me is. If there is a proper place for the notability question to be deliberated, I'd appreciate being directed to it without further run-arounds or misdirects. That said, I have edited Wikipedia for over a decade now, and although I understand the notability policies, it is curious that these deletion nominations have only become a real thing here on Wikipedia within the last 2-3 years. The notability guidelines now are the same as they were when I first joined Wikipedia as an editor in 2007, and if articles about such subjects were not a problem at that time, I fail to see why that is suddenly the case now. That said, I understand the policies involved, and if the consensus determines that General Authority Seventy articles need to be deleted for failing to meet the notability guidelines, I will accept that decision. But I am in the process of trying to establish an exception that would categorically establish notability for General Authority Seventies, so I would also be appreciative if this discussion and a decision on it could be placed on hold while I work on that issue. If that's not possible, it's not a problem, but I thought I'd ask.--Jgstokes (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I don't view the present status quo regarding notability guidelines as a problem at all. The guidelines were created based upon consensus regarding what is worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. Also, I don't view Wikipedia as a repository for every person in the world that has received significant coverage only in primary sources. There are other websites and resources available for those that do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Also, I do not want to place this discussion on hold at all. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I recognize and support the evolution of policy over the years. But most of the policies under which articles such as this were originally created have not fundamentally changed within the last decade, so if an article was not a problem then, I don't see why that should be the case now. I also did not in any way intend to imply that every person in the world who is given significant coverage only in primary sources should have an article here on Wikipedia, and apologize if anything I have said has been interpreted as such. That said, for a religious denomination that has 16+ million members worldwide, and is recognized as the fourth (or even third)-largest religious denomination in the world, there should be a similar (but certainly not identical) policies establishing notability for full-time leaders of this Church. And again, through no fault of my own, my efforts to try and establish such an exception have me running around in circles. It is certainly up to you whether or not to halt the discussion on this nomination. Either way, I will continue to do what I can to find the right place to have the discussion that many editors have agreed needs to take place to establish notability standards. And again, if the consensus opts for deletion, I will accept that decision (whether or not I personally agree with it). But it seems to me that continuing the deletion discussion for such articles may be somewhat disingenuous if earnest efforts are being made by myself and others to resolve the concerns that led to the deletion nominations to begin with. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LDS is smaller than Seventh-day Adventist Church and Evangelical Church in Germany, similar in size to Apostolic Church (denomination) and Southern Baptist Convention, and nowhere near the larger Catholic and Orthodox denominations, not to mention religious groups from traditions other than Christianity. Bakazaka (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For reference, here are some previous discussions of LDS leaders in Notability talk archives: 2014, 2016, and 2017. Bakazaka (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 17 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?} 13:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm skeptical about adding particular offices to inherent notability, but the venue for that is Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). The issue of independent sources for leaders of denominations with tight hierarchies and official publications is difficult, and is worthy of more careful attention. However, in this particular case, the lack of even incidental independent coverage makes this article clear to me. Daask (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Subject does not meet WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and for failing WP:ANYBIO. Ifnord (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Seventy (LDS Church)#First Quorum of the Seventy. This may be a popular search term as there are millions of Mormons worldwide and the only thing he is recognized for is being the FQotS. Just merge there that the current one is this guy. Redditaddict6 9 16:12, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts[edit]

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

This article is pretty much a WP:SYNTH essay. Bringing together totally unrelated ideas from at least three different religions, this article is a textbook case of synthetic original research. Note that no source for this article connects the three separate religious claims or speaks at all to the generalized subject of the article. Rather this is just a novel compendium of ideas that the Wikipedia editors seem to think are related.

It is perfectly reasonable for Wikipedia to include an accounting and higher criticism of the fantastical claims that get made by some believers in various religions about their religious beliefs having been inspired by a supernatural understanding of scientific reality. However, such discussions are best left on the articles that can be written about subject where the sources directly comment on these ideas. Examples include Islam and science, Biblical inspiration, and Hindu cosmology, for starters (but these are by no means the only articles where such information can be merged). As it is, this article is just serving as a catch-all net for vaguely related ideas and until serious scholarship develops which actually does the legwork of making comparisons between these beliefs, Wikipedia should not be on the vanguard. jps (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was surprised to see it nominated since I have the impression that the article could be improved scholarly, although it would mostly a rewrite, so it may well be justified. This reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fulfilled prophecies which I nominated (with delete result). I'll still think more about it before !voting. —Paleo Neonate – 13:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no reliable sources discussing the fringe notion that religious texts "foretell" scientific discoveries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.13.71 (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have been looking for sources just now but failed to find anything worthy. I know of primary sources of various Christian denominations with such claims (i.e. "the circle of the earth" interpreted as being a sphere by the JWs) and of some Muslim primary sources with other similar claims. They're however primary and I can't find a good nonpartisan scholarly work discussing this revisionism postdiction phenomenon, at least not using these keywords. Maybe of relevance could be Vaticinium ex eventu, hindsight bias and somewhat related Bible code and Symmetry in the Quran... There is more information about protestant and new religions movement millenarist revisionist interpretations of visions from Daniel and Revelation, which tend to focus on politics rather than science. —Paleo Neonate – 23:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: interestingly, such claims about Nostradamus are more popular in culture, but we have relevant articles about it already. —Paleo Neonate – 23:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - synthesis and original research about a bunch of unrelated assertions. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, possibly leaning towards "Merge". There is something to be said in this area. Arguments of this kind are made in the hope of proving the divine authorship of holy books. The game is to show that they imply scientific facts which no humans knew at the time of writing and hence that it could not be the sole work of humans. People do this. They are not going to stop doing this just because it is silly. The same game can be played in reverse to tease out assertions that are scientifically incorrect. For example it has been argued (seriously) that the Bible asserts a claim equivalent to π=3 and (humorously) that it describes a heaven that must be hotter than hell. This is also silly and makes a great topic for silly YouTube videos in which each side tries to outdebunk the other side's debunkings of their claims. However, it is certainly not the silliest topic to have an article and I'm sure that some instances of this are considerably more notable than the YouTube videos I mentioned. I think it is reasonable to have an article (or articles) about those. The question is whether this is, or could be improved to become, that article. It's certainly not great. Covering multiple religions in one article might be a synthesis unless we can show a scholarly reference linking the phenomena across the different religions. Also the article is too much a list of specific examples and not enough about the shape of the overall phenomenon. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There was apparently a deletion discussion about a previous version of this article that happened in 2005. I apologize that this was not automatically transcluded in my listing because of how long ago the discussion happened and the changed name. In any case: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biblical scientific foreknowledge. jps (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And was redirected from this state. —Paleo Neonate – 02:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, the above was a WP:POVFORK created over the move-redirect (copied from Conservapedia). —Paleo Neonate – 02:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We could redirect this to Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Guy (Help!) 07:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not just because of WP:SYNTH, but because the article totally fails WP:DUE. Besides relegating "criticisms" to a pitiful section at the end, this article doesn't even begin to cover the topic. Where's Dianetics? Buddhist āgamas? Shinto texts? Taoist, Wicca? I suppose the article was better when it just covered the Bible as it did during the 2005 AfD (and this isn't as bad as the PoV fork), and should each religious text be split out, that may satisfy some of the core content policies. Seeing as articles covering the topic already exist though... — Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an encyclopedia article, and no way to edit it into one. XOR'easter (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - piling on. way too many OR/POV issues. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with XOR'easter; this isn't an encyclopedia article and there is no way to edit it into one. Perhaps a small amount of material from this artilce could be used to improve Apologetics, but nowhere near enough for a merge. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Adding another snowflake to the pile; a mass of original research, POV-pushing, and synthesis that is beyond salvaging. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Novel fringe concept, not covered in RS, so not viable. Alexbrn (talk) 04:58, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kartikeya Gummakonda[edit]

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

This article was tagged with AfD but the tagger never created an AfD discussion page, instead they placed the following on the article's talk page: I found this article was deleted two times previously and suspected as paid article so i put afd tag. I request deleting admin to check properly and delete it speedy or anything you would like to. I'm creating this discussion page for the tagger, because I do not believe the actor meets WP:NACTOR. Note that it has been speedy deleted three times in the past month, including once as a G5 deletion as it was created by a sock of Gaurav456. bonadea contributions talk 11:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @TheRedBox: who was the original tagger of the article. --bonadea contributions talk 11:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 12:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 12:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TOOSOON, Only been in 2 shows only of which 1 is notable, Can't find anything online, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:46, 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. While multiple sauces have covered the matter to some degree, consensus is for deletion, mostly as per WP:NOTNEWS. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Szechuan sauce riots[edit]

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

The word "riots" in the title of the article is misleading per MOS:CONFUSE. No reliable source has called it that, unless it is between quotation marks in order to express irony. Furthermore, considering the enduring notability of the events, the sauce fiasco is not notable enough to develop a stand-alone article about it per WP:NOTNEWS. - Radiphus 11:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC) Update: The page has been renamed to 2017 Szechuan sauce fiasco. - Radiphus 13:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The very definition of WP:NOTNEWS, and "fiasco" definitely doesn't correct the inaneness of dumb 'and finally' items being called 'controversies'. Nate • (chatter) 13:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above and the article makes no credible claim of significance - it just says there was an "incident" but does not describe what that incident was. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The incident was covered at various media including Fortune. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're not obliged to carry articles about any event that is covered by various media. For example, Fortune have an article detailing how Goose Island Will Release 8 Different Bourbon County Brand Stout Variants This Year, but I'm pretty sure an article on that topic wouldn't survive AfD.--Pontificalibus 10:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pontificalibus: To clarify. My Keep vote is for the subject. The incident has been covered at various media, not just Fortune, but CNBC and The Independent and many others as well. As an inclusionist I always suggest to check Google News and Google Books before nominating anything for the deletion. In this example, there are 1900+ press mentions for "McDonald's" +"Szechuan" at Google News. This means that the subject itself is notable and either: 1) a properly referenced section should be created at McDonald's article or 2) a Szechuan sauce article should be created. As an example, South China Morning Post article says "McDonald’s has “brought back” to China the Szechuan sauce that caused a frenzy in America last year". --Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:N, the notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article, and this is what we are discussing about in this AfD. Note that i myself have written the section Rick and Morty (season 3)#Cultural influence which mentions the incident, but i could never imagine it being notable enough for WP standards to develop a stand-alone article about it. - Radiphus 18:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a clear WP:NOTNEWS story which barely warrants a mention in the McDonalds article let alone its own article. Valenciano (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have seen Wikipedia plumb some depths in the past , but this is deeper than most. Fails almost any test that could be thrown at it but let's just stick with WP:NOTNEWS. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This doesn't contain enough debth to the story to be a standalone article. it should be either/both included in the McDonalds pages and Rick & Morty pages. But it's not a noteable enough cultural event to warrant its own article Llaowyn (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - I am the creator of this article, and I apologise for the lack of content and citations. I am new to Wikipedia, and I don't have the time and energy to expand articles most of the time. So I understand if you agree to delete this article, because I'm not very proud of it either. --User:Danielcool123 10:36, 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 merge to University of Zagreb. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Philosophy and Religious Sciences[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, largely based on the own website (but that one is dead by now). Part of the University of Zagreb, insufficient notability for a separate article. The Banner talk 11:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the parent university. The Faculty of Philosophy and Religious Sciences is a department of the University of Zagreb. But wait! The Faculty of Philosophy and Religious Sciences, ow named the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences already has a page. It does seem like the article here at AfD belongs is just a variant of the article Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb. Why do we have this article then, the one at AfD? Presumably because someone felt the need to promote all things Jesuit. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Zagreb. We can't create more than a small stub if onlly independent sources had been used. Lorstaking (talk) 18:46, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Pedro Arrupe" Political Training Institute[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner talk 11:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. More Jesuit spam. Eight of the nine sources provided are self-published by article subject. After removing one inaccurate source and four self-published sources on meeting announcements, there is very little left in terms of RS. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ThatMontrealIP. -Aṭlas (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Bangalamania (talk) 15:05, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ignacio Ellacuría Social Foundation[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, large sourced with the own website, promo The Banner talk 11:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources found in BEFORE, and the article creator seems to have quite a reputation for creating COI pages relating to Jesuit organisations. Some of them appear to be notable and thus decent articles after a rewrite; this one, unfortunately, does not seem so. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 13 of 29 sources provided are self-published. The article is clearly the result of a promotional, agenda-based editing effort to synthesize an article on a non-notable subject.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:38, 26 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. Per GNG claims, but in the future please link to some of these sources so that other people can judge them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Verlinden[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This musician appears to have released only one single. The references given do not seem to me to make significant coverage and I have been unable to find additional references. Tacyarg (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Sorry - I hadn't spotted that there was a previous AfD, in 2010, with outcome of No Consensus. Tacyarg (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the references cited in the article are enough to pass WP:GNG. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very minor music entity whose main claim to fame is association with Parris Goebel. Notability is not inherited. Fails WP:NMUSIC, GNG and SIGCOV. Note that article was created by a user who seemed intent on self-promotion by association and padded by User:Rick570 who was blocked for copyvio and whose main purpose was to create/pad out articles (such as this) on St Peter's College alumni. 01:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)}
Delete fails WP:NMUSIC and not enough for GNG. Appears to only have articles due to link withGoebel. NZFC^(talk) 07:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a quick Google search shows that he has featured at times in most of the major national NZ media over the past 9 years - ie NZ Herald, Stuff, Otago Daily Times, Newshub. While he has gone quiet over the past couple of years he still has done enough to meet WP:GNG. NealeFamily (talk) 09:30, 12 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 have looked around, and there are many references to Sam V in various press. I've added a selection of these to the article. In particular, the World Championship of Performing Arts where the subject of the article won awards is itself a notable international music competition; I found third party coverage on the competition around the world. Verlinden won 'Overall Junior Champion of the World'. Clearly notable. I found a number of articles discussing Verlinden including New Zealand government websites. The article could do with some cleanup post-AFD to create a more unified and linear-in-time article. Ross-c (talk) 11:21, 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 10:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY as multiple references to coverage in reliable sources have been added to the article so that it now passes WP:Basic regards, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:35, 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 Redirect to Nineteen (song). bd2412 T 01:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waycross (band)[edit]

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

While this low-charting single seems to help subject meet WP:MUSICBIO, it has not resulted in any press for the band and so they still appear to fail WP:GNG and are not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I brought up this article at WT:WPMUSIC due to my own concerns given my expertise in the field. Literally the only source I found was a college newspaper which seemed to garner only a single WP:ROUTINE given that one of the group's members is an alumnus of that college. The only other hit was this blog, which appears to be self-published and mostly focuses on a cover version of their single anyway. A search for "Ben Stennis" + "Waycross" gave me nothing. Typical country music sources like Roughstock.com, CMT, Country Standard Time, etc. gave absolutely nothing either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While reaching No. 54 in the Hot Country Songs Billboard chart is not that impressive, that does satisfy WP:BAND. The Hot Country Songs chart is listed in WP:OKAYCHARTS. WP:BAND states 'Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.'. Hence, the band satisfies WP:BAND and the page should stay. WP:OKAYCHARTS is a bit confusingly formatted, so I'll listen to any arguments that I have that wrong, but everything I can see says that the band meets a sufficient notability guideline. Ross-c (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ross-c: The thing is, they turn up literally nothing at all except the non-reliable sources I pointed out above. They utterly fail WP:V because, outside the Joel Whitburn Country Songs book, we don't even know who was in the group. They may meet a notability guideline with a charted single, but they fail other sourcing guidelines. Not everyone who charts is notable -- just ask Mickey Dimichele, who made the same chart in 2004 but turns up nothing at all either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with TenPoundHammer on this and note NBAND states that they "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria", not that they are. Barring further sources. I would say they're not notable, which is why I nominated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Ben Stennis does seem to have some songwriting credits to his name (see Category:Songs written by Ben Stennis, but as there is nothing unambiguously proving this to be the same Ben Stennis, any connection would likely be WP:OR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: @TenPoundHammer: My point is that they pass WP:BAND, so they don't need to pass any other notability guidelines. Hence, given that I've pointed out (and others have noted) that they pass WP:BAND, we don't need to see if they pass other guidelines. If their song had only charted in the very lower regions of the chart named (which is an acceptable chart), then we can note that guidelines are guidelines, but in this case their song is well within the charts, and satisfying WP:BAND is, in my opinion, enough. Ross-c (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:BAND isn't ironclad. The country chart used to have 100 positions. There are artists in the Joel Whitburn book who have only one song that got to #94 and were never heard from again. Meeting one criterion of WP:BAND does not supercede WP:BLP or WP:GNG. And as I said, these guys don't even pass freaking WP:V, as there is LITERALLY NOTHING OUT THERE saying who was even IN THE GROUP. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:BAND isn't ironclad. That doesn't in any way mean that we should ignore it and assume that a band isn't notable if it doesn't pass WP:GNG. Otherwise there's no point in having specific notability guidelines at all. Ross-c (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But MUSICBIO/NBAND is less ironclad as it uses the term may be notable. If it stated that that subject are notable you would have a point. Find sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Ross-c: Google results for "Ted Moxley" "Ben Stennis"]. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've 'screwed up' at all. It's just that satisfying one guideline is enough, in my opinion, to justify the inclusion of the page. There is no need for multiple guidelines to be satisfied. And therefore, my vote is based on WP:BAND and the other searches to see if they satisfy, e.g., WP:GNG do not counter the reasons for my keep vote. Ross-c (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ross-c: I think the fault in your argument is that WP:GNG supercedes WP:BAND, not vice-versa. There are artists who satisfy at least one criterion of WP:BAND but utterly fail WP:GNG, and I think it's pretty clear that this is one of them. The sources just aren't there. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN RAJU: - yes, they appear to fail WP:GNG. But, as we have WP:BAND, that in no way means that they shouldn't have a page. The whole point of having multiple notability guidelines is that WP:GNG is not a one size fits all guideline that always works. As in WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:NFOOTY, there is a simple objective measure of notability in WP:BAND, which is that the band has had a single in a qualifying chart. Which the subject of this article has. And, like in the Olympic Games and Football players, this page deserves to be on Wikipedia. Ross-c (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's still the fact that there is literally no sourcing on these guys, which shows a complete failure of any other policy. WP:BAND only says charted artists MAY be notable. Have you found any sourcing that I've somehow missed? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Comment - I'll put this here as the levels of response above are complicated. Here is the text from WP:N which states that a topic is notable if it meets either WP:GNG or a specific notability criteria. 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; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. Ross-c (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nineteen (song). Due to the lack of other references, I will point out Moxley's LinkedIn profile, which says he was affiliated with "Waycross Music" but doesn't make clear that he was a performing member. There simply isn't enough coverage to justify a stand-alone article; their one single is a good redirect target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nineteen (song). Agree that the above editor's suggestion is the best solution. This subject (Waycross) fails both WP:BAND and GNG based on lack of significant sources. A one-time appearance at the outer-reaches of a specialized Billboard chart is not especially noteworthy, especially considering the metrics for chart entries for new releases are based on so many variables, such as promotional giveaways, pre-orders, etc. Perhaps had it stayed on the charts for more than one week it might mean something. So while this subject's involvement with a notable song (Nineteen) is not enough for a stand-alone article, the song itself is notable and this subject deserves mention there as the original recording artist. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nineteen (song) appears reasonable. While the band may technically pass WP:BAND, the article really doesn't contain any useful information other than the song. Ifnord (talk) 13:16, 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) wumbolo ^^^ 10:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial Real Estate Women[edit]

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

Notability concerns. No independent references in the article, and the only references I've found are line-items in personal bios (like [42]) or meeting announcements (like [43]). power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, no independent in-depth coverage by reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep found sources, rewrote article, removed unsourced material. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 09:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. The additional sources, many requiring subscriptions to access, demonstrate that the topic passes GNG. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kee[ after Megalibrarygirl's improvements - now appears notable. PamD 08:29, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bashir Ahmed Sarki[edit]

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

A poorly sourced and promotional BLP lingering over for a decade now. Fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines WP:POLITICIAN because never elected to any state or national level parliament. Also lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources, thus fails basic GNG as well. Saqib (talk) 08:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOLITICIAN never won any election. Never held any notable post. --DBig Xrayᗙ 23:16, 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 delete. No one advocating keeping this. Deor (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaroslava Siktancova[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability, and I couldn't find reliable sources about her. › Mortee _talk 20:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability requirments for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - her one named role is essentially the classic Redshirt (character), a character in SF only known for being saved then for being killed. Bearian (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This one is actually tougher. She hasn't gotten much coverage as an actor, but she has gotten some as a director and theater founder; unfortunately it's mostly in Czech, which I'm not great at, and the Google translate is naturally imperfect. [44] [45] [46] [47] If someone can cover the Czech, we might be able to save this one. --GRuban (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you notified any relevant WikiProject or editors yet? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Of the four references suggested by GRuban the first two appear blog-like entries, the second has her in passing mention, and the third is a note from a radio show she called in to for an interview. Ifnord (talk) 13:22, 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 merge to Loyola University New Orleans. Apparently the sources are not adequate to justify an article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit Social Research Institute[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG, promo. Small institute belonging to the Loyola University New Orleans. The Banner talk 10:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a large enough institute to deserve an article separate from the University; it would be awkward on the Loyola University New Orleans page to have such a long diversion from the university article. Also, this institute receives outside support as a joint work with the Jesuit Province of which Loyola is a part. And the impact of its efforts is evidenced in Time magazine, Washington Post, New Orleans Advocate, The Times Picayune, and Seattle Journal for Social Justice, as well as the national Catholic News Service and Philanthropy News Digest. (please add). A search will also find its work included on broadcast news websites. Also, please add this independent reference to the Kellogg Foundation. Jzsj (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jzsj, a source is only independent if it has no connection to the subject, and write freely and objectively of the subject. The Kellog foundation gave the article subject a grant. Do you understand how that is not independent? The gift of money connects their interests very clearly and makes them non-independent. Can you see this?96.127.243.251 (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three mentions that they have issued a report, nothing substantial about the organisation. The Banner talk 13:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Frankly, this is more Jesuit spam, sourced entirely by Jesuit and Catholic organizations reporting about other Jesuits & Catholics. As someone wisely said at another AFD, what is the difference between something like the Catholic Reporter and the Plastic Bottle Rpeorter? They are both trade magazines. In the absence of independent RS, this is promotion that fails GNG and NORG.96.127.243.251 (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See this, this, and this. I'm thinking this passes WP:CLUB. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 19:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last two sources you mention are passing mentions. for WP:CLUB: "The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization." There's no CLUB, NORG or GNG notability here, unless you can come up with something resembling in-depth sourcing in multiple reliable sources.96.127.243.251 (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Daask (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC) ~~Keep~~ It's reports and experts are widely discussed in mainstream media like the Wall Street Journal, Center for American Progress, U.S. News and World Report, and Fortune magazine. Daask (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But this is an article about the organization, not about its reports. The Banner talk 18:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These links are very deceptive, as they are only passing mentions or at most a few sentences. There is no in-depth coverage in them.96.127.243.251 (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daask, have you read the sources? Or, have you just dropped every GHit into the AfD? ∯WBG^converse 11:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: I reviewed the articles I mentioned and thought I was clear that they discussed the center's reports and experts rather than the center itself. When there are sources with good depth of coverage, but we are unsure if they are adequately independent, I think the incidental treatment of the subject in mainstream sources is a useful indicator for notability. Those articles all seem to regard the center as respected and authoritative.

However, I appear to have misunderstood the issue based on the above discussion of the reliability of the Catholic News Service. I'm not seeing any source with significant depth of coverage, from Catholic News Service or anywhere, so I'm changing my vote. Daask (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Fails Wikipedia:Notability. None of these sources - or the ones listed in the article, except those published by the Institute itself - are about the Institute as such. They're about other topics and mention the Jesuit Social Research Institute in a sentence or two. There's plenty of room to merge into Loyola University New Orleans when you remove all the parts that aren't about the University, and aren't written about by independent sources. For example: the director testified; the director published an article; a fellow presented a paper; all that isn't about the university. Every university has professors that publish articles and present papers, that's what professors do, for most professorial positions it's a job requirement. It would be more unusual to have universities that don't publish articles and present papers. --GRuban (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Loyola University New Orleans per Gruban.∯WBG^converse 11:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, which is wat we usuaually do with university institutes of this sort. Very few are appropriate for separate articles. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shifty Eyes[edit]

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

Subject is a hiphop musician. Sources provided are interview pieces, listing/user generated content. Fails WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and WP:MUSICBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:53, 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) 08:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability through significant coverage not shown. Reywas92^Talk 02:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here constitutes an WP:NMUSIC pass, and the sourcing is mostly to non-notability-assisting blogs rather than real reliable sources — and the only one that is a valid reliable source, The Source, gives him just a 44-word blurb rather than a substantive piece of coverage, so it doesn't singlehandedly vault him over WP:GNG all by itself as the only non-garbage source in play. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, since subject verifiably fails WP:MUSICBIO. -The Gnome (talk) 10:45, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Logi Entertainment[edit]

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

Article fails to meet WP:N. Have not been able to find any sources in English or Korean to establish notability. Lenoresm (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:23, 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) 08:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletedelete, signifant RS coverage not found. Does not meet WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:N and it's only source is Korean Wikipedia, which is against policy to use as a source. The article tells a reader essentially nothing of value about the company other then it exists and the names of some current and former affiliated people. I was unable to find any reliable sources in Korean or English demonstrating notability either. This article seems more promotional then anything, since it's sole purpose seems to be letting English speakers know the company exists and how to check it out (by going to their website). Nothing encyclopedic or even just informative is learned from the article. The only source on their Korean Wikipedia page is their own website as well. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:45, 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. There is apparently consensus that there is sufficient material here for more than just a dictionary definition. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siberian Express[edit]

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

Unsourced term apparently made up by some weather reporter. A WP:BEFORE search yields anecdotal articles from 2015.[48][49] Fails WP:GNG. — JFG ^talk 10:09, 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 United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep https://books.google.de/books?id=QMi5DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA215&dq=Siberian+Express+weather&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjr8Ni4iODcAhXSKVAKHd0dBbMQ6AEIMTAB#v=onepage&q=Siberian%20Express%20weather&f=false https://books.google.de/books?id=5Dx-BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA302&dq=Siberian+Express+weather&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjr8Ni4iODcAhXSKVAKHd0dBbMQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=Siberian%20Express%20weather&f=false Agathoclea (talk) 13:25, 9 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) 14:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DICDEF. The article here is just describing the word which can be covered in Wiktionary. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies GNG with potential to expand beyond a definition. James500 (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Agathoclea's links added to JFG's links (strangely enough). It's a metereological phenomenon, so we can hardly expect its life and times and an interview with it, but the sources show that it is both used often enough, and detailed enough to be worth a short encyclopedia article, rather than a dictionary definition. --GRuban (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it's a term / phenomenon that people would reasonably want to look up on Wiki. For sources, please see Ask Tom Why: Tom Skilling on meteorology, weather and natural disasters. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also in The Living Earth Book of Wind & Weather - Page 117 by Carl A. Posey ( 1994):

A bad winter across Europe and the United Kingdom is usually a gift from Russia, and the torrent of frozen air that sometimes spills out into eastern Canada and the United States is familiarly called the Siberian Express. Buried beneath this ...

Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Usage by press and academia. The "Before" even had someone from NWS use the term. StrayBolt (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This occasionally media trendy term is nothing remarkable as cold air effecting the U.S. comes from other places as well, such as Canada. A Wiktionary definition would suffice, as WP:ROUTINE coverage does not make this article meet WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not the Weather channel and in the real world, in winter when it is very cold outside, people notice that it is very cold outside, not the catchy names weather forecasters often use to make the weather sound more interesting. Such terms might make weather coverage sound cooler then saying a cold front is moving in from the north-west, but all that actually matters to people in the real world is that Saturday is supposed to be minus 15 degrees. When I was younger and in still in school, we had six weeks straight of sub-zero temperatures because cold air was pushed down from Canada. Do you know what I noticed and cared about when watching/reading about the weather? That it was absolutely freezing outside and in my room, not the trendy way the weather media tried to describe the situation to increase viewership ratings. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per GRuban. 208.54.87.254 (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per K.e.coffman and GRuban. I didn't have a lot of hope for this article initially, but I think we're well past DICDEF by now. Daß Wölf 01:49, 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 merge to Indoor roller coaster. Some roller coasters are indeed "enclosed", but there is no reliable source suggesting a consistent distinction of encyclopedic note between those that are "indoor" and those that are "enclosed"; or distinguishing between the thematic type of enclosure. bd2412 T 15:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of enclosed roller coasters[edit]

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

The phrase "enclosed roller coaster" is not an industry-defined term. It's simply one editor's idea that roller coasters that are enclosed needed to have its own list. There aren't any reliable sources tracking this, so there's no doubt this would be an incomplete list at any given time. I am also notifying WikiProject Amusement Parks. GoneIn60 (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Indoor roller coaster and remove the list aspect. The article kind of already exists at Indoor roller coaster and it seems to be a Run of the Mill ride list. AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Indoor roller coaster" suffers the same issue. This isn't an industry-defined term, and the article will never contain enough information to justify its existence. 90% of the content now consists of an unsourced list. The brief 1-2 sentence description can be merged to roller coaster if it really needs to be retained. WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTDIC --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Indoor roller coaster. I'm not sure there's a well-defined distinction between "indoor" and "enclosed" and have not found any references that attest to a difference. [50] uses the terms interchangeably. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – You will find "enclosed" or "indoor" in front of "roller coaster" in various publications. This is like coming across "fast race car" or "tall building" in running text. This doesn't mean the use of an adjective justifies a standalone article. Other than an definition (which is unnecessary by the way), there's nothing else to state. Merging to "indoor roller coaster" kicks the can down the road, as that article will/should be listed in an AfD as well. If a roller coaster that's enclosed is notable enough to have its own article, the description "enclosed", "indoor", etc., can be mentioned there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We also have Category:Enclosed roller coasters and Category:Indoor roller coasters as part of Category:Roller coasters by type. To my lay-eyes at least, those words seem to overlap each other such that merging might be appropriate in one direction or another, but are not vague comparatives like "fast" such that I don't get the nominator's concern. Indoor/outdoor seems a rather clear and binary distinction. But if there is an issue with these descriptions or classifications, this might be the sort of subject-specific distinction that would be best discussed first at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks or Talk:Roller coaster so that a comprehensive view of all of this content can be developed rather than just poking at one list. Subsequent AFDs and CFDs could then point to that talk page discussion for background. postdlf (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main WikiProject is, for the most part, inactive. There are a handful of editors left, but unless manually pinged, they're not likely to respond. I left a notification there pointing to this AfD when I first opened it. I'm not sure I follow the logic here about how the categories are related. They would have their own inherent problems, because not every coaster in existence passes WP:N and has its own article, therefore the list of coasters within each category would be incomplete. Also any article that attempts to create a list of indoor roller coasters would likely be incomplete as well, as the list itself is not based on any reliable sources. Seems like WP:LISTCRUFT to me. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The categories are related because they are just another format for presenting/organizing the same content. So if we're talking about a problem with the classification upon which this list is based, then certainly the categories would have the same issue. I don't understand your comment about a list being "incomplete"; completion is not relevant (nor possible) if all we're doing is listing articles we have that fit the inclusion criteria (just as a category does), and not making any statement that "this is a complete list of all the indoor roller coasters that exist." And if a roller coaster is notable, then certainly whether it is indoors or not would be documented in reliable sources. postdlf (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well we certainly don't need separate lists and categories for "indoor" vs. "enclosed", so at the very least, one should be merged into the other. Based on Google News searches, "indoor" seems to be the predominant category. My point above was that you have to draw a line at some point to avoid over-categorization, and tracking whether a roller coaster is indoor vs outdoor seems like a trivial detail in which to base a category or list upon. A personal website run by some enthusiast, sure. In an encyclopedia? Not so much. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete; article has not a single source. --GRuban (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced for nine years. No evidence that this is a real term. Don't merge; since this is unsourced, it fails WP:V, so can't be merged. In fact, the proposed target fails WP:V as well, for the same reason. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do not merge to an article that can be deleted for exactly the same reasons. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - merge voters, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indoor roller coaster which was also nominated for deletion. I agree that two articles converting essentially the same concept is unnecessary, but should keep one or the other. - Scarpy (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons that I gave at the AfD for indoor roller coaster: [51]. This satisfies GNG. NOT is wholly inapplicable. There may be scope for merger with indoor roller coaster, but deletion would be wholly inappropriate. James500 (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse Merge from Indoor roller coaster. Both cover much the same ground and both are lists, but the other does not inducate that it is only a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The key argument is JHunterJ's observation that Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/CJKV task force addresses exactly this issue. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

義安[edit]

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

Not an English title. A previous attempt to redirect to the pinyin Yian was reverted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redirect, i.e. restore to previous redirect; it’s not a perfect match to all the uses listed but WP is not a Chinese dictionary. More generally en.wp is in English, articles including dab pages are in English with English titles. Foreign words and titles should only exist as redirects to the article/dab page that matches the name/title, or deleted if none exists.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This topic merits a wider discussion, i.e. there should not be different WP:UE findings for 義安 versus 東區 simply because, in the latter case, for example, there are non-East Asian subjects at Eastern District (disambiguation) where, per WP:FORRED, pointing 東區 at them would be inappropriate. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(I copied this from Talk: 義安. It's a case of WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE, the thing with Chinese character is that there is no definite pronunciations to them. Additionally, although some people may have a preference towards Hanyu Pinyin and Mandarin Chinese, most of the articles that are about concepts represented by the characters "義安", (i.e. Ngee Ann Secondary School, Sun Yee On) are not spelled "Yi An", therefore I believe this DAB page should stay.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem that is true for pretty much all Chinese chars. There are different Chinese varieties like Mandarin, Cantonese. There are different Romanisations for each. Many Chinese chars also have one or more Kanji readings in Japanese, or were used as Hanja in Korean. So Chinese chars can be associated with multiple names used in English.

But WP is not the place for people to look up all the Chinese, Japanese and Korean uses of a character. That would be using WP as a dictionary, for which we have Wiktionary. Or if someone wants to find uses of a character or characters on Wikipedia they can use the fast and effective search engine.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 05:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per per the discussion on the talk page. I can see where those advocating for deletion are coming from, but this is an issue that affects over a hundred dab pages and had better be discussed in a larger venue. Also noting that redirecting is not an option (see WP:XY): there isn't much to recommend the proposed target of Yian over any of the alternatives. – Uanfala (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no romanized title that will give the same disambiguation scope as this title. I understand the drive for WP:UE and would too have preferred a Latin-alphabet title, but I think the applicability of WP:UE on disambiguation pages should be considered on a case by case basis, especially where Romanization introduces additional ambiguity. I also thought about the other plausible outcome: if we redirect this, and then the redirect gets sent to WP:RfD (or worse, DRV), I will most likely argue to disambiguate this title, as I have argued for several other Chinese character titles. Deryck C. 14:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ping Gorthian who changed the disambiguation into a redirect earlier this month. Deryck C. 14:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Keep and split out Ngee Ann (disambiguation). 203.145.95.51 (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If everyone cannot agree with a solution the best one is to not have this page at all. Its highly unlikely anyone would search this term anyways. By deleting it also maintains neutrality towards all the different pronunciations. ~ Araratic | talk 09:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deryck Chan. Merging this into the pinyin page would introduce amgiguity and impede navigation ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia disambiguation pages are not articles, so the claim that "articles including disambiguation pages" is incorrect. There is a taskforce for just this kind of navigational page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/CJKV task force. There are multiple articles that could legitimately be the target of 義安, so lacking a primary target, 義安 is correctly a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:52, 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. Both a procedural Keep (Nom withdrew) but also consensus that issues were resolved per improvement. With thanks to Mark viking for WP:HEY (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Optomechatronics[edit]

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

Below dictionary standard. Rathfelder (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have expanded the article into a modest referenced stub. Multiple reliable sources found in a simple WP:BEFORE search and the fact that the field has its own journal and conference series all show this to be a notable topic. With the sub-stub problem fixed, there is no reason to delete this article. Hence, keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 13:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 14:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after improvement. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. XOR'easter (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to withdraw my nomination. Rathfelder (talk) 17:27, 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 merge to Euro coins#Belgian 2.5 euro coin. Almost everything is already covered there. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian 2.5 euro coin[edit]

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

This article is only a couple of sentences longer than Euro coins#Belgian 2.5 euro coin. Perhaps the contents of this article should be merged into the section of the Euro coin article and then changed to a redirect? – numbermaniac 07:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 07:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 07:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 07:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as unnecessary fork to Euro coins#Belgian 2.5 euro coin, merging the numbers minted. TBH, I think WP:BOLD could apply here. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:22, 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) 11:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maverick Wild[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although there are a ton of sources, they all appear to be WP:ROUTINE coverage. There are several however that are from print which I can not verify the quality to see if it could establish notability or not. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 01:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mostly WP:ROUTINE match results. The few print sources seem to be local small-time coverage. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 20:51, 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. Redirect at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blanche Cobb[edit]

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

There is no notability guideline or policy that says “the fourth oldest X is notable”. The sourcing for this article is pretty sparse and fails WP:GNG (most of the article is family quotes about the individual). Two sources are obituaries and the other four are all local feature articles about her. The only other sources I could find on her WP:BEFORE are WP:ROUTINE generic articles which listed the names and ages of old living people, and a GRG table which tells us nothing other than her name, age and country. Even if these sources meant she was somehow notable, then WP:NOPAGE and WP:BIO1E should almost certainly apply as there is nothing to say about her other than the basic trivial longevity stuff (born, married, had kids, was fourth oldest in the country, loved potatoes, died). Her presence on lists such as List of supercentenarians from the United States is enough, as this article is never going to expand beyond a WP:PERMASTUB and is primarily acting as a WP:MEMORIAL.

Given off-wiki canvassing problems on this topic in the past, for the record, this is WP:NOTAVOTE. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to appropriate list. This has got to be the most padded supercentenarian article I've ever seen. More than half the article is quotes about her from her family and we apparently need 5 sentences about her love of potatoes. Also fails WP:GNG in that every single source is tied to Jacksonville, Florida. This would be local coverage only as she retired to the area. And do note that she wasn't even the oldest in her state. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merely living a long time does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per consensus that notability was reached at one point and as notability is lasting, addition of sources is sufficient for a Keep. With thanks to any editor who participates in the needed rework (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Desportivo Estância Baixo[edit]

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

Non-notable local football club per WP:FOOTYN. Apparently it only played at national level once. Markussep ^Talk 06:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Club played in the national top division for a season. Nominator's rationale re FOOTYN is incorrect because of this. Number 5 7 12:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right, according to this ref they actually played in the 2005 national championship. If the article is kept, it will need a major rewrite, because User:Pumpie and his sockpuppet User:Terriffic Dunker Guy made a mess of it. Markussep ^Talk 17:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:FOOTYN. I have quickly added two sources - more are available. SportingFlyer talk 11:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:FOOTYN. Through a rewrite is needed.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above - needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 11:07, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FRAY Studio[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The supplied references do not even discussing the studio. The creator and editor, Theatrepeople, appears to be an WP:SPA account interested in creating subjects associated with the studio. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to find anything to satisfy WP:NCORP. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Excellent point. When I tried to find sources as suggested by WP:BEFORE, I was unable to. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mentions in passing, or no mentions in the refs. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:43, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Demos Journal[edit]

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

1. Non-notable based on sourcing, combined with 2. WP:NOT clear promo with WP:SPA creator. Widefox; talk 23:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Non-notable based on sourcing" implies that the nominator didn't follow WP:BEFORE before calling for deletion, since a proper evaluation of notability is based on a search for sources at large, not only by examining the ones already provided in the article. Also, I don't find any of the language to be promotional, and, before recent rules went into effect, there was nothing unusual about people creating an account for the first time in order to create an article, and nothing wrong with that, especially given that such a person could have been editing anonymously for years. Largoplazo (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. This was prodded and had two prod2s User:Randykitty User:Jack Frost User:Largoplazo which speaks for itself (the other editors I can ping are SPA creator, and SPA IPs (plus one other IP). This to me looks like clear promotionalism, which I refrained tagging as it's not overtly an advert, although just existing in WP is enough, and per WP:BOGOF I wish to counter this systemic bias. Notability isn't the only reason we can delete something, NOT advertising is also (nom reason 2), and we're WP:NOTBURO. The more finite resource we put into countering promotionalism, the less we get to work on non-promotionalism. I volunteer on the latter, as it improves this place. Widefox; talk 13:06, 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 05:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The current stub is neutral enough for my taste, I don't see much (if any) promotionalism, nor do I mind that this was created by a SPA editor. However, neither do I see much evidence of notability and a Google search does not render any independent reliable sources either. --Randykitty (talk) 05:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW keep; consensus is that WP:PROF is met and references have been added to the article. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Weiler[edit]

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

This article does not meet wikipedia's notability guideline. This article has hardly have some sources and those sources are primary. So I beleive the article has violated WP:NOTABILITY and WP:PRIMARY SOURCES. Hence I demand the article to be deleted. ABCDE22 (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject passes WP:PROF as Tier 1 CRC with over four thousand citations to her work. Bakazaka (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a couple of references. Subject appears to have a lot of academic publications and less attention in mainstream media.Tacyarg (talk) 07:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to above arguments, she is frequently cited as a media expert, and gets something that is more than glancing coverage there.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Bakazaka and others. Adding another reference (TV station calling her a newsmaker) and more information. ~~00:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)~~ HouseOfChange (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:PROF as a Tier 1 CRC with a good citation profile (h-index of 35, 9 publications in the triple-digit range). XOR'easter (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highish GS cites for a very well-cited field passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy keep. Nomination shows no evidence of understanding or applying WP:PROF and subject passes multiple criteria (#1 and #5 at least). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep For the reasons mentioned above. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:15, 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 merge to Regatta. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skippers' meeting[edit]

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

Another user added the AFD template to the main article (Skippers' meeting) but did not create the AFD page; I have procedurally created that page to allow the discussion to move forward. Note that this article has no sources and was recently tagged as a hoax. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 22:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the user who added the AfD template created a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Skippers' Meeting, with a slightly wrong capitalisation. I've closed that as a procedural close. --bonadea contributions talk 10:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 22:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject does indeed exist. Upon doing a web search on Google, I found multiple entries about it. Still, I don’t believe it is notable enough for Wikipedia. The article's text is also awkward and contains many red links. Torrent01 (is cool) (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Anyone reading this AFD may want to direct their attention to another longstanding, unsourced article about a similar subject: Race committee. This one also definitely needs a lot of work. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 00:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The two articles are created by the same user, Infinoid. Another article this user created is Flying Dutchman (dinghy). Torrent01 (is cool) (talk) 17:57, 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 04:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with regatta - this article now has a tag saying it is not a hoax, but is probably not notable enough for a standalone article. Vorbee (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Regatta - regardless of sourcing, this would be an unneeded CONTENTFORK and could actually add worthwhile content, thus a merge preferable to a redirect. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:53, 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 delete. Michig (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert W. Kelley (Florida Attorney)[edit]

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

Routine coverage of attorney. No in-depth coverage of him, only coverage of a case he was involved in. Being involved in big cases does not make a lawyer notable. Being named one of the Lawyers of the Year is a routine industry award. Non notable. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, maybe a redirect to one of the two major cases he helped settle.Antonio Simon Le Bon Martin (whhhhhattttttttt!!!!????) 05:14, 24 August, 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indistinguishable from an advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta Weiss[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Does not meet any notability guidelines. » Shadowowl | talk 16:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - assuming it can be sourced well, she had a big role in a major soap opera and a supporting role in a cult film, The Dead Zone. A search online such as this could find lots of possible sources. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article has no reliable sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 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) 01:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notability test for an actress is not the having of roles, but the depth and breadth and volume of reliable source coverage that can or cannot be shown to get her past WP:GNG for the having of roles. And any article (including outright hoaxes) could simply claim that it "could be possible" to find better sources — so to get the "keep and flag for reference improvement" treatment, it needs to be shown that better sources do exist, not just theorized that maybe they might anything's possible who knows. And brother bear's Google search results are not showing any evidence of reliable source coverage of this Roberta Weiss — the hits are mainly the self-published primary sources of a real estate agent, not reliable source coverage about an actress. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The significant role in Santa Barbara (161 episodes) is easily verified, and as well as a smallish role in The Dead Zone, she had a lead role in How to Make Love to a Negro Without Getting Tired ([52], [53]), as well as significant roles in Mangeuses d'Hommes, High Stakes, and Abducted. Easily satisifes WP:NACTOR. --Michig (talk) 07:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Red Phoenix ^talk 03:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at paywalled newspaper databases, there's some coverage from the late 80s and early 90s. For example, Toronto Star article from 1987, covering a party: "Among the munchers were American Cousin John Wildman and the gorgeous actress on his arm, Roberta Weiss, star of the summer release High Stakes." Or a Toronto Star article from 1995 on the then-new series Family Passions: "Soap veteran Gordon Thomson (Dynasty, Santa Barbara), plays Mathias Haller, while fellow Canadians Andrew Jackson (All My Children) plays Jan Futing and Roberta Weiss (Santa Barbara) plays Dolores." There's also a 300+ word story from 1994 in the New Orleans Times-Picayune all about her that also confirms the Santa Barbara and Family Passions appearance: "Whether Weiss-Bizeau was doing what she wanted, she still was doing exceedingly well. In a "Santa Barbara" stint that lasted less than a year, she was key to the city, playing with fire the incendiary con artist Flame Beaufort" and "Recently, Weiss-Bizeau appeared as a diner proprietress on "Family Passions," a syndicated serial unique in that it was taped in Canada and bankrolled by Germany." There's more. It's minor coverage, and it's in newspaper archives, but it exists. Bakazaka (talk) 06:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is completely unsourced, so it clearly violates WP:BLP. The lack of substantive coverage of this actress means she is not notable enough to warrant an article. Random mentions dredged up from old archives about also being in a project or on the arm of some man are not notable or unique in any way. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the archived sources such as a 300 word story directly about her enable a bare pass of WP:GNG, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:07, 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. There is an absence of consensus for any specific resolution after extended discussion. While it would be reasonable to move this to draft space, there is sufficient support for keeping the article entirely to allow it to remain in mainspace for any issues to be resolved. bd2412 T 22:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global empire[edit]

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

This is a quite well-written but unsalvageably essay-like article. Referencing is restricted to shoring up basic facts (e.g., the extent of the British Empire at its peak gets a full four refs) while the 90% of the text that is synthesis is cut from whole cloth. The author is not reporting published findings, they are pursuing their own argument. Not suitable as an article for Wikipedia. - I would just revert this to the previous redirect to List of largest empires, but as it may not be an obvious case, some input is requested. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a personal essay, not an encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The complaint that the article is an essay is facile because our articles are supposed to be prose essays. The personal views of the author(s) are not apparent and, instead, the views of historians such as Niall Ferguson are presented. As a broad concept, the topic is clearly notable because there are books out there such as the following. Andrew D. (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conquerors: How Portugal seized the Indian Ocean and forged the First Global Empire
In The Shadow Of The Sword: The Battle for Global Empire and the End of the Ancient World
After Tamerlane: The Rise and Fall of Global Empires, 1400-2000
World Without End: The Global Empire of Philip II
Puerto Rico and the Origins of U.S. Global Empire
Scotland's Global Empire
Day of Empire: How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance--and Why They Fall
Mechanisms of Global Empire Building in the First Global Age

Delete as per WP:NOTESSAY. Most of the article is unsourced, and the sourced content is not something which I have not seen already in articles such as The empire on which the sun never sets, British Empire, Empire, etc. Besides, any salvageable content could just be fitted into any one of these articles. It should be restored as a redirect to List of largest empires, which is what it was before being turned into an essay of original thought. Impru20^talk 13:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix per Andrew Davidson. This appears to satisfy GNG. "Essay" is a problem that can be fixed through editing (WP:SOFIXIT). The Soviet Union is missing from the list according to this source: [54]. James500 (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep and fix~~ ~~Delete and fix~~ Draftify and fix The article needs more comprehensive sourcing, and duplicates knowledge already available at List of largest empires. I suggest the content should be in draft space, and the article name reredirected to the original List of largest empires until the draft passes muster. Willondon (talk) 05:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you mean "draftify and fix". Moving a page to the draftspace doesn't delete anything. James500 (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are. Willondon (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:32, 16 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) 19:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- There is probably something that could be made out of this, but it will not be easy. I am slightly disturbed by the first three citations being in Chinese or Japanese. However, it is about a valid academic concept. Nevertheless, it may need deleting and starting again. I suspect that the author is reaching above his academic ability to handle a complex subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are there any academic articles with this particular definition? I'm leaning delete unless this is a specific academic concept, and I can't tell from the available sources. SportingFlyer talk 10:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep I don't doubt that the concept of a global empire is used commonly enough (e.g. [55][56][57][58] and many more) and therefore it is notable enough to warrant an article. The question is whether the article as it is is acceptable, or if it needs to start all over again per WP:TNT. For example, there isn't a properly sourced definition, what's given in the lede appears to have been copied from Chinese Wiki and I have deleted the notes since they are not sources, just unsourced explanatory notes. Large part of it also lacks sources. At the moment I'm leaning towards keep because I think its flaws are fixable - questionable statements can be deleted, and add a few more sources as well as a few suitable tags while waiting for the attention of experts. However, I have no objection to it being redirected, even though it isn't really the same thing as List of largest empires or The empire on which the sun never sets. Hzh (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue with most of the referenced material is that, rather than making a description out of the concept of "global empire", these are works on each of these actual empires (i.e. the British Empire, Spanish Empire, Portuguese Empire... all of these have already articles of their own). Empire#Theoretical research already covers much of what would theoretically go into such an hypothetical article, and for a list of these empires, we already have List of largest empires. Then, we also have Imperialism and the already mentioned The empire on which the sun never sets. I can hardly see how a "global empire" article could develop into more than two or three lines of content of its own without entering into content forking with other existing articles. Wikipedia does not need to have a separate entry for every concept, and I think that any attempt at developing this concept would very well fit as a section of "empire". Impru20^talk 18:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global empire is not the same as British Empire, or Imperialism or List of largest empire, Empire, etc. The argument against it is odd - an article on galaxy does not exclude articles on spiral galaxy, list of spiral galaxies, galaxy group, galaxy cluster, supercluster, etc. There may well be some overlap, but they describe different things, so I don't see how such argument is relevant. I can well imagine different things being written in the article that is different from Empire or the other articles. The main problem with the article is that a lot of the statements in the article are unsourced, therefore they may be possible OR. As I see it, it's not about whether it warrants its own article, but whether the content of article is problematic enough for it to be deleted. Hzh (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would not regard WP:CFORK and WP:NOTDIC as not being relevant as an argument. Just because "they describe different things" does not mean that they deserve to have separate articles. Spiral galaxy is separate because enough content exists for it to avoid being a content-fork of other articles (notwithstanding the fact that it is an official class of galaxy, rather than an informal term such as "global empire" could be).

At the current state of things and with the currently-presented sources, any hypothetical non-essay "global empire" article would almost certainly have serious overlapping issues with Empire, Great power, Superpower, List of ancient great powers, List of medieval great powers, List of modern great powers and The empire on which the sun never sets, and probably also with World empire, Imperialism, List of largest empires, Thalassocracy, Transcontinental country, List of transcontinental empires and countries in history, Preponderance of power, and this not even including the articles on the empires themselves.

Wikipedia has already too many articles on empires, global powers, transcontinental states and the such, so the existence of a further one would have to be justified in the need for it and/or on the topic's notability. Which brings us to question whether the concept itself does meet WP:GNG, requiring us to find any academic work that gives a significant enough coverage on the concept itself (rather than coverage on one or various of the aforementioned empires) so as for it to merit a specific separate article, rather than it becoming a redirect or a disambiguation page (which is another possibility I see). Impru20^talk 21:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand your argument, because the examples you gave are all different. For example, China is a great power, potentially a superpower (arguably already one), but it is not a global empire (although you might use it in a figurative sense), or thalassocracy, or a transcontinental country. World empire is redirected to world government, which again is an entirely different concept. If there are difficulties in understanding the different concepts, then perhaps that's an argument for having separate articles as they may help people understand the differences. The too-many-articles argument is an irrelevance, there are as many articles as necessary as long as those articles satisfy the notability criteria. Hzh (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained how this does not meet WP:GNG, and I have not been refuted so I guess there is not any actual source giving such a concept a significant coverage so as for it to merit a separate article.

Nonetheless, maybe you could explain what the concept of "global empire" actually is. Because you have disregarded all of the example articles I gave yet did not bring any actual reason as to why "global empire" does not fit into any one of them. Impru20^talk 22:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say that there is enough sources that talk about global empire, therefore it should satisfy the WP:GNG criteria. I'm sure if you read those books, they may give you a definition, and it is for those who want to improve the article to do that. If you want me to explain how a global empire is different from a thalassocracy, sorry, it's not within the scope of the AfD for me to read the dictionary or a Wiki article for someone else. Hzh (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you provided are about specific empires, not on the concept of global empire, which is not the same. You should know that WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:SOURCESEARCH are not valid arguments for deletion discussions: it is up to you (not me) to read your own books. If you have not done it, I cannot understand how do you actually know that they make this topic to meet GNG.

Nonetheless, what those books define for each empire basically meets the definition of a modern superpower (i.e. a state with a dominant position, which is characterised by its extensive ability to exert influence or project power on a global scale). Note its interesting section about superpowers of the past which includes all of the empires in your books, and many more. If that is your definition for "global empire", then it would happen that an article already exists for it (just under a different name). But in fact, there would be an article already for basically any sort of definition you may think "global empire" stands for. It would be up to you to demonstrate that there is another definition and/or use which makes this topic notable as separate from all of these, but you have provided none. Impru20^talk 23:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it's not for me to read the dictionary or Wikipedia articles for someone else. There is a definition in the article for global empire, albeit unsourced (therefore it is arguable if it is accurate or reliable), but if you think that the definition would apply to all the "superpowers" mentioned in superpowers of the past, that would be your own understanding (or misunderstanding). There is nothing more I can add. Hzh (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the one providing the sources, it is expected from you to have read the sources and being able to explain how these books support this topic's notability, rather than commanding others to check out themselves whether this notability actually exists. Just posting some random sources without actually having checked whether these provide enough information to write a reasonably detailed article on the subject is not enough, as we could end up with a permastub as a result of the impossibility of being able to provide further content without coming across content forking.

Obviously, the unsourced and chaotically-built definition in the article cannot be regarded as anything other than original research, unless proven otherwise. And I interpret the superpowers of the past section as that is: a heavily sourced listing of empires which have been thr "superpower" by historians. I agree that there is little else to discuss here. Impru20^talk 23:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:OR. Redirect name only to Superpower#Superpowers_of_the_past where the subject is already covered. A plausible search term and possibly a topic for a future article, but this page ain't it. This is a personal essay that does not improve the project one bit. A disservice to the readers. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:07, 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.

So sorry everybody ![edit]

..., because my English not good, I just can use simple English. I'm used Google translate to write Global empire page. I do love empires, but I do not know how can write a best wiki-page in english wikipedia Đông Minh (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The concerns about the article content's source/original research probably mean that a merger is not justified, redirects can be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate selection procedure in the United States and the European Union[edit]

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

We already have the article Preselection, which roughly covers the same topic on a more global scale. Additionally, this article has been unreferenced since 2008. Even if refs were added, I still don't see the need for the extra article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Presidentman: I have stricken your delete !vote per WP:AFDFORMAT, which states that nominators of AFDs have already implicitly voted delete in those AFDs, and therefore should not place their votes in the discussion on a bulleted line. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 03:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 01:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 01:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 01:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Preselection if the refs are added, redirect otherwise. Useful info, not warranted for separate article under any circumstance. Redditaddict6 9 01:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unclear what purpose of article is, these are two different topics. Some content could be merged. Reywas92^Talk 02:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure OR and synthesis of two topics from two fundamentally different entities. Unfocused essay, magnet for further OR and speculations. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:53, 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.