Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 August	6 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Quigley (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails WP:ENT. reddogsix (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 23:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only references are to IMDb (which is not WP:RS), and all his roles have been small. Narky Blert (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are zero reliable sources. His roles run from the Redshirt to the passing mention, none of which even have a last name. Bearian (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no reliable sources at all on this article on a living person, not even one, so BLP rules alone say it should all be blank.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNon-notable actor with article containing no reliable sources at all . Kpg jhp jm 04:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Feels a bit of a pile on. but yeah. non-notable minor actor. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:22, 13 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. Enigma^msg 17:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JP Karliak[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. He is a good actor and has not had a page on this website before. Plus, I was able to add an official website and his one-man act to his page to help improve it. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the quality of his acting is not relevant. The individual fails to meet the criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia, specifically, WP:BIO and other criteria. Adding his webpage and relying on IMDB is hardly using independent sourcing. reddogsix (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an individuals own personal webpage does not establish notability, nor does IMDb, a nojn-reliable source. Nothing here establish notability. I have to admit that Wikipedia is flooded with articles that do not meet its notability criteria, and might always be, but we have to start somewhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing that this page meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG. I've searched quite a bit and the only sources I can find are IMDb, Twitter, his personal website, FANDOM wikis, and similar websites. I haven't managed to find significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 16:48, 13 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 discussion makes it fairly clear that the subject has substantive coverage, and as such is notable. The question of whether or not to have a standalone page is therefore better sorted out at a merge discussion. Please note that "not notable" carries absolutely no weight as an argument without further substantiation. Vanamonde (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Holy..."[edit]

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

Not notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This subject is world famous and it should be easy to find sources if someone put in the effort.★Trekker (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Keep or merge to Robin (comics) or Robin in other media. While the sourcing provided some interesting info, especially with the impact of the phrasing, I'm not confident that this merits a solo article. If better sources are found, I would support keeping it. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 02:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Holy keep !votes, Batman - there are plenty of sources if you look in the right place, and the nomination rationale is a classic argument to avoid. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Holy history Batman! This type of phrase has a past even before you and me.[1] StrayBolt (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this was moved from List of exclamations by Robin in December 2017 without discussion. It was previously nominated at AfD in 2013. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Holy cow (expression) has much of the general usage. Added a "See also" hat. StrayBolt (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Keep . a great shame the list can longer be reliably sourced. I think notable examples should certainly be preserved. Holy Astringent Plum-like Fruit, Holy Priceless Collection of Etruscan Snoods and Holy Uncanny Photographic Mental Processes spring to mind, obviously. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What in the Sam Keep –Vami _IV✠ 19:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:JNN. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As trivial fancruft. Make a short mention at the TV series and then put examples of the snowclone in an appendix at Wiktionary. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the page merely contains fancruft and Holy cow (expression) has much of the general usage._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article possess enough notability as it is simply related to Batman series and has reliable sources to verify the content in the article. Abishe (talk) 08:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Holy cow (expression). Two fairly short articles would be better as one longer one. Bondegezou (talk) 14:52, 10 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 Triple Canopy. Vanamonde (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Constellis[edit]

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

I am nominating the constellis article for deletion for several reasons, first of all the article is and has been a stub for several years, not only possessing minimal detail on Constellis as a corporation but also primarily focusing on Triple Canopy, of which this article was apparently split off of. On top of this, Constellis has since merged with Academi and may not exist as an independent entity at this point. It is very likely that Constellis may very well be served better being discussed in the Academi/Blackwater PMC page rather than in its own independent page. Jyggalypuff (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jyggalypuff (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Academi and Triple Canopy. There's no practical reason to have three separate and largely redundant article about three merged companies, so I agree with you. However, I think we may already have talk page consensus to merge. Perhaps you should withdraw the AfD and simply do the merge? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for it if its been decided on, I asked about this beforehand and was told there was no proposal of this nature though. If you would be so kind as to link to it I would be happy to withdraw this AFD. Is merging three articles like that something that is viable though? I'm relatively unfamiliar with this facet of editing.Jyggalypuff (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - the article already is mostly about Triple Canopy. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge what into what?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 20:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicki (TV series)[edit]

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

No updates in over two years. Pilot was never even filmed. BoogerD (talk) 20:07, 5 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 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 21:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm usually kind to TV shows, but that's only if they are actual TV shows. This one seems to have drowned in development hell and has gotten nowhere. As WP:NFF indicates that we shouldn't have articles about films that have had no principle photography, it should apply to TV shows unless there is something notable about the development of a show. I don't see that here. --Oakshade (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No pilot, no script, no article. After deletion a plausible redirect to Nikki (TV series) should be made. Nate • (chatter) 01:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A cancelled show [2] is not notable, mere announcement of a show in development does not qualify a show for an article per WP:NTV, let alone one that was never produced. Hzh (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A canceled show can have enough notability for its own article (just look at Aquaman (TV pilot)), but this particular project has not receive enough coverage to support a separate article. Most of the sources that I found on the show has repeated information on the concept, casting, and its eventual cancelation. The information on the show can be easily contained in the Nicki Minaj article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. @BoogerD: Thanks for AfD'ing this – I've been meaning to do it myself, but never got around to it. Note: Any relevant content should be merged to Nicki Minaj (if it hasn't already) before deleting. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:34, 8 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. Essentially, nobody asked to keep the article, but if anyone wants it userfied for purposes of editing the disambiguation page, let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Wallace (British musician)[edit]

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

No notability outside his musical groups as an individual. There are multiple musicians named John Wallace, making it difficult to locate reliable & significant sources. The chart positions are credited to the band not him as a musician. The editor whose username is Z0 09:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not indepdently notable as a musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Plausibly satisfies WP:NMUSIC via membership of two notable bands, but could possibly be adequately covered by slight expansion of his entry at the John Wallace disambiguation page. --Michig (talk) 08:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 08:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 20:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He is a member of multiple notable bands but has done little as an individual. I was going to recommend redirecting to his most recent band but unfortunately his name is way too common for that to work. Like Michig above, I suggest listing his three bands at the John Wallace disambiguation page. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusted the disambig page as suggested above, but that won't matter if this article is deleted. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:31, 12 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. Enigma^msg 17:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Envato[edit]

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

Been keeping an eye on this for a while, and I've seen SPAs and spam-blocked users tacking promo onto it. Finally got a chance to look at the sources in depth, and it's almost entirely primary. The others seem to be to routine coverage, press releases and niche sources. I did a quick Google News search, which didn't unearth much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; created by Special:Contributions/KingDog~enwiki with no other contributions. Promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom and above. Reference are mostly PRIMARY and fail WP:ORGIND for not being intellectually independent. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:20, 12 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. Enigma^msg 17:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Carter (footballer)[edit]

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

Carter fails WP:NFOOTBALL because his Charlton appearance was against an under-23 team. He fails WP:GNG as well Dougal18 (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Has not played in a competitive game between two teams from WP:FPL. Giant Snowman 08:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does he not qualify for NFOOTBALL for playing in the FA Trophy? Govvy (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably you mean the EFL Trophy rather than the FA Trophy........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorz, thought I read the FA Trophy, didn't realise it was the EFL Trophy, and anyway, wouldn't he qualify under the EFL Trophy if it's two professional clubs playing each other? Govvy (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - He would, but in his only appearance he came on for three minutes as a substitute against the Swansea U-23s. SportingFlyer talk 02:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Seems to have been a rash of non-notable articles created linked to Hashtag United recently. Number 5 7 22:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY. It was a bit tricky to assess though. MapSGV (talk) 10:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY #2 by virtue of his appearance in the EFL Trophy, a competitive match between two teams from fully professional leagues. Both League One and League Two, the two leagues which compete in the trophy, satisfy WP:FPL, so it was obviously between two teams from FPL's. Smartyllama (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY. Has not played a single fully professional (i.e. full time football) league game, if he signs for a full time team or Hashtag Utd go full time (the latter of which seems highly unlikely in the foreseeable future) the page can be revived. Cheesy McGee (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noted above, his only Charlton appearance was for three minutes in this game against the Swansea U-23s: [3]. Fails WP:NFOOTY and good riddance for that! SportingFlyer talk 02:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find it hard to consider deletion under NFOOTY #2, there seems to be a bit of a grey area and lack of clarify over EFL Trophy, I am simply going to say delete due to not much weight for WP:GNG because the sources generally feel WP:ROUTINE. Govvy (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As commented above , it is very difficult to consider under WP:NFOOTY , But a player who has played only one match and that also not for full time , if he signs for and plays full time for a competitive club , then the page can be undeleted. Kpg jhp jm 05:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ole SC[edit]

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

Unsourced football club that does not meet WP:NCLUB » Shadowowl | talk 19:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - amateur soccer club that existed in 2016 and 2017, but doesn't appear to be the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. The local Grand Rapids Business Journal covers similar clubs like Grand Rapids FC, but has only mentions the name of this club in two articles online (no coverage of the club itself). Seems like a clear failure of WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Jogurney, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:FOOTYN is not an SNG, WP:NFOOTY is, and it clearly states that teams must meet the GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 16:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to satisfy the GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 16:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unsourced. On inspection also fails WP:FOOTYN and isn't salvageable. SportingFlyer talk 07:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wholly unsourced article which fails WP:NFOOTY . Kpg jhp jm 05:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ayumi Oka (actress)[edit]

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

Microstub about non-notable actress without sources. » Shadowowl | talk 19:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No sources to prove notability and online search yields no results. The article only offers one short sentence about the actress. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese Wikipedia article shows involvement in around 40 TV shows and movies, so "speedy" may be overdoing it. Not to mention that a previous nomination was closed as "keep." Dekimasuよ! 20:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Previous AfD reached consensus, and the history of the subject has not changed. Search of recent Japanese-language sources finds Japanese news coverage mostly repeating personal announcements from her blog, for example [4] [5], so those are not useful for establishing notability. The corresponding jawiki article shows a track record of mostly minor roles, which can be confirmed by a quick Oricon search, for example the recurring role in the final season of 大好き!五つ子. The Japanese news articles about her typically mention her appearances in 半沢直樹 (Hanzawa Naoki) and 3年B組金八先生 (Kinpachi-sensei) as the reason readers might know her. Overall probably passes WP:NACTOR#1 based on early career and supporting roles in multiple notable TV series, and there's nothing to suggest that the previous AfD was erroneous in its assessment of notability. Bakazaka (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is always wise to check the corresponding articles in other language Wikipedias before nominating an article for deletion. Editors who cannot read the language in question can use Google Translate to get a rough translation that should be sufficient to allow them to evaluate sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Japanese version has 2 blogs as sources. » Shadowowl | talk 20:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added "find sources" template using Japanese name. Bakazaka (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In Japanese there is significant coverage from reliable sources. [6][7][8]--Oakshade (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the extra reliable sources coverage identified above, passes WP:NACTOR Atlantic306 (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the sources Oakshade provided. I would say that all of these are reliable and independent enough for the article to pass WP:GNG, and they significantly cover the topic. However, we do need to make sure these sources get added to the article, as the current sourcing isn't sufficient to pass the notability guidelines.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. obvious promo Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ojas Eye Hospital[edit]

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

Ad for WP:NCORP failing hospital. » Shadowowl | talk 19:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability aside, WP:TNT applies here. This reads more like a puff piece than an encyclopedia article. Nukable mess. Accesscrawl (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I edited the article to remove the puffery. It is neutral now. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:37, 8 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. Enigma^msg 16:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Varun Datta (Entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Keep - 1) Removed promotional information and puffery. 2) Removed unnecessary references related to press releases. 3) All references from notable coverage in media in UK and India. 4) Strong geo-social relevance as well as association with an significant economy. --Ro 1209 (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC) ro 1209[reply]

Blockchain puffery of a non-notable person. The references are all press releases or solely based on press releases. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - repeat spam bio (previously Varun Datta). Cabayi (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Query Tool[edit]

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

Promotional, unsourced article about non-notable software. MER-C 19:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 1) Promotional, then everything on this "Comparison of database tools" list should be considered promotional, including the freeware that YOU haven't marked for deletion. 2) AQT home page says "since 1999 with tens of thousands of licenses sold in over 70 countries", which sounds more notable then lots of freeware. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any coverage. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to have any independent coverage beyond passing mentions.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Undo mainspacification. This looks like it was moved to mainspace by accident. I've just moved it back to draft space. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CineLibri[edit]

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

This article has no independent references. A Google search does not turn up any independent coverage, only the usual vanity hits. As a result, does not satisfy general notability or event notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my area, and I really don't want to spend any time reading up on event notability, but a web search very quickly comes up with non-trivial coverage in major news sources: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. – Uanfala (talk) 19:02, 5 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. Enigma^msg 17:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyers of Distinction[edit]

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

The references are all press-release style content promoting individual lawyers, and are trivial mentions of the organization. A more detailed description can be found in their own marketing; other coverage is extremely skeptical of the organization's credibility: [14] [15] (I doubt those sources would let the group meet GNG even as a scam, and they're not reliable enough to call it a scam in Wikipedia's voice). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, although it did receive some opinion coverage for nominating a dog.[16] Bakazaka (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though it was only created 2 days ago. My searching various repositories does not turn up significant coverage. This appears to be a sort of top-lawyers mutual recognition network, and it might be significant but not based on verifiable sources found to date. Another issue with this is the term "lawyers of distinction"; this phrase has been used for more than a century to highlight lawyers thought to be of great repute, confounding search for the proper noun. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- this is not a notable guide. Notability for a guide is not inherited from its entries. This is barely more than spam. The directory itself is a pay-for-play deal. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 6 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. Enigma^msg 17:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NACA Report No. 742[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Cannot find any significant coverage in secondary sources of this report. Rogermx (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Honestly I have no idea why this was thought suitable article material. The report may make a nice source for citable information within some wind tunnel-related topic, but it certainly does not look notable on its own. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Sheep[edit]

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

Hardly notable, found exactly one source (now in the article) that goes further than just mentioning the company, and even that one is pretty shallow. Fails all notability guidelines, general and project-specific. Edit: I expanded the article by anotehr source, though that one was written by the company's own COO so does not add to indepndency of sources. Still aiming for deletion. Lordtobi (✉) 16:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough for an article. I see Argali as a potential redirect target afterwords since Mountain sheep redirects there but we don’t need the current history to do that.--76.65.40.44 (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, references are not intellectually independent and fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:SIGCOV. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Leventhal[edit]

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

Poorly sourced BLP of a person notable only for serving on a county council. As always, county councillors do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just because they exist -- at this level of office, the notability test is the ability to source the councillor well enough to deem him special, not just the ability to nominally reference the fact that he exists. But this article cites just six references (one of which is unnecessarily reduplicated as two separate footnotes for no apparent reason), of which two are primary sources that do not assist notability at all, one is a blog, one is his purely routine "candidate positions on the issues" questionnaire that every candidate gets to answer, and one just namechecks his existence as a giver of soundbite in an article about something else. There's literally only one reference here that's both reliable and substantively about him for the purposes of establishing that he would pass WP:GNG, and it's from a local community pennysaver in his own county -- so it doesn't singlehandedly vault him over GNG all by itself as the only solid source in play. This is simply not good enough sourcing to make a county councillor notable. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.
Delete county council members are not default notable, and nothing else adds up to the level of coverage needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Desires in the Ladies' Restroom: Dripping![edit]

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable film. Does not meet WP:NFILM and significant RS coverage not found. Awards are not significant. References in the article are passing mentions, promotional, or unselective databases. The award listed ("Silver Prize" - 2nd best film) is not significant or well-known. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per nom. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails NFILM & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:40, 7 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. After the article was expanded, no further opinions to delete it were offered. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kota Banks[edit]

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

Not seeing much in the references or in a preliminary search that meets WP:MUSICBIO, my guess is that the reviewer felt it met #11 "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.", but I couldn't find much evidence of that other than the author's claim. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hello:) It states here she has had frequent high rotation on radio. https://newworldartists.net/kota-banks/. She also meets 5; Signing to a notable record label in Australia.

@Jonnycraig888: The reference you linked to is not a reliable media outlet. According to their "about us" page.. New World Artists is an independent booking agency exclusively representing Artists for live performances and concert touring throughout Australia, New Zealand and Asia Pacific.. As to your second point, I don't see any indication that "NLV Records" is a "notable record label", feel free to provide evidence to the contrary, always happy to be wrong. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 16:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No worries. NLV records is under Nina Las Vegas's label. She is one of Australia's biggest Female Dj's and is a prominent dance music figure. She is also signed to Capitol Records which is very much a major label. http://www.capitolrecords.com/artist/kota-banks/ Here a websites confirming radio play: https://airit.org.au/Kota-Banks-Fiorentina-Italian-Version.html http://2rrr.org.au/music/ Music Archives - Fresh 92.7 fresh927.com.au/category/music/ Kota Banks is one of the most exciting figures in Aussie music at the moment. Carving ... Here's a round-up of the latest tracks we've added to our daily rotation. https://www.unifiedmusicgroup.com/kota-banks-shares-new-single-video-zoom/ https://jplay.com.au/artist-profile/19656/ https://themusicnetwork.com/charts/issues/1182/radioactive/ (Jonnycraig888 (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Struck sock. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes Notability. AntiNom (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mind elaborating on that view? Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 16:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. No significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Never appeared on a notable music chart, or received significant critical attention. — Newslinger talk 00:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It meets 11 on WP:MUSICBIO and there are many reliable sources (49.195.192.172 (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]
  - I'm trying to confirm this. I'll update a vote when I complete the search. — Newslinger talk 01:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Keep. Confirmed rotation on Triple J here. Apparently, this is the official site of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. — Newslinger talk 01:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you so much for your help (49.195.192.172 (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]
        No problem, thanks for the correction. — Newslinger talk 02:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        No User:Newslinger, that page does NOT confirm rotation, it only show one individual play. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm having a hard time finding reliable sources for Australian airplay. The artist's JPlay profile shows airplay, but I don't know if JPlay is reliable, since it doesn't appear to be owned by Triple J. Is there a publicly accessible reliable source for this kind of information? — Newslinger talk 08:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added content and refs. The artist passes WP:MUSICBIO#1 and #11.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're amazing! Thankyou (49.195.192.172 (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Comment on the claim of rotation. The only source supporting this is a record company source and we all no they happily exaggerate for publicity, so not good enough. JPlay, whilst not a reliable source, does show that the last two plays of the song claimed as on rotation were over two weeks apart. That is a long way from rotation. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- JPlay is not an easy site to navigate (since it harasses you to sign in), but I've found the airplay history for "Child" (16 plays), "Holiday" (41 plays), and "Zoom" (76 plays). Although JPlay itself isn't reliable, these airplay logs can be confirmed by going to Triple J's site and searching through the historical playlists of the radio shows that include them (an arduous task). I'm just going to list 3 recent plays of the artist's songs, which should establish that her music has been placed in rotation nationally:
  - Aug 5: "Zoom" on Breakfast
  - Aug 4: "Fioentina" on Mornings
  - Aug 4: "Child" on The Kick On
In the "Recently Played" section, search for the date to get the show's playlist for that date. For some reason, the playlists on the Triple J site don't line up with the JPlay site. (I'm not going to draw any conclusions about the reliability of JPlay, since neither site is designed very well.) However, it looks like Kota Banks does pass WP:MUSICBIO #11. — Newslinger talk 15:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've found another ref, Amnplify, which states "Banks' recent releases 'Fiorentina' and 'Zoom', the latter a confident and flirtatious pop banger that has achieved full rotation on triple j following its Good Nights premiere in March this year." Hopefully this, with Newslinger's work, will suffice.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Unfortunately that doesn't do it for me. Amnplify is quite obviously a promotional portal, even according to themselves: "(in about us) The Australian Musician Network (www.amnplify.com.au) is one of Australia’s leading music content websites that provides promotional services to musicians, bands, events, and music festivals around the country and artists worldwide". I'll grant that the concept of "rotation" is less than concrete, but I think the argument they were played 3 times in two days doesn't meet WP:SUSTAINED, which seems what #11 is trying to convey. The fact so much digging is required to even find the few times they were played may be somewhat indicative of the broader notability issue. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 16:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guernsey Parkrun[edit]

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

No indication of notability beyond any other park run. Haven't been able to find any news coverage or other pieces about it by people unconnected to the organisers. BubbleEngineer (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is referenced to the Guernsey tourist board - the official Guernsey government backed agency. It was set up by the Guernsey Sports Commission - the government managed sports agency and referenced accordingly. It has also had coverage on ITV a UK national news outlet. It is notable enough to be backed by the government. Refs [17]. [18] [19] Szzuk (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another run of the mill running race in the park. Sources added above and included in the article itself do not affirm notability. Ajf773 (talk) 11:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't the tourist board of the country sufficient in itself? It is secondary and reliable - making the event a notable attraction according to the country. Szzuk (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that this event is notable. Coverage appears to be WP:ROUTINE or WP:MILL. Tacyarg (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Event is not notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:55, 11 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. Enigma^msg 18:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinegrow[edit]

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

Non-notable commercial software. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Creator AlanMattano has few edits outside this topic. MER-C 16:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: I'm Alan Mattanó, a new user and author of other deleted page as for example the Italian word "planata". This is my second fail making a contribution to Wikipedia. My position is neutral and no direct relationship with this software house. Pinegrow is new and a quality of note is that is one of the few text editors software review 4.5/5 that is making front to cloud web builders market domination. Growing in student popularity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanMattano (talk • contribs) 02:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I notice that this page is essentially a redundant WP:CONTENTFORK of the draft article with the same title, Draft:Pinegrow. Unfortunately, it does not currently appear to meet criteria for inclusion at the moment. AlanMattano, please don't feel discouraged when I say this, since Wikipedia has very strict rules on inclusion. I think you've written a fairly good article given the available sources, but Wikipedia requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources for an article to be considered. I'd recommend that you keep working on the draft until it's covered by one or two major magazine or news source, if you feel that it will be notable in the near future. Once it meets the coverage requirements, it would be easier to meet the verifiability for the content of the article.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew K. McCauley[edit]

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

A non-notable businessman that does not meet WP:BASIC. From searches, available independent sources consist of mentions, name check and minor puff pieces. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - an argument could be made that as CEO of Gymboree means he could be notable, if obscure sources could be found. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 6 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. Hut 8.5 20:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick J. Lavelle[edit]

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

Non notable political consultant. I've restored the fullest version from this history, to display what material there is for a fair judgment here. Unfortunately, all of it amounts to mere notices. I was unable to find anything more DGG ( talk ) 07:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The positions that Lavelle held may be unfamiliar to some editors. As Agent General, he represented Ontario's interests in France. He was not an ambassador (since only sovereign states exchange ambassadors), but the position is significant. As deputy minister at the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, he was the senior professional employee there, reporting to an elected minister. He is listed in the 2001 edition of Who's Who in Canadian Business, but that directory may not be sufficiently selective to count for notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, continued. I didn't check all the references, but the ones I checked apart from Who's Who in Canadian Business did not appear to be in-depth. For living Canadians whose notability is in question, it is always worhwhile to check The Canadian Who's Who, but he does not appear to be listed in the current edition. I cannot tell whether he was listed in a previous edition. Some Canadians are listed in directories published by Marquis Who's Who, but I do not have access to the Marquis Who's Who database, and I recognize that some editors think Marquis is not a reliable source. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Many of the sources indicating his work in the Automotive (and a handful of specific cases like Bombardier) were documented in older physical sources. I've managed to find some of these now and temporarily have scanned and stored them here. I believe his posts and influence on at least the Automotive front were significant. Please advise. Yoniket 10:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral comment @Eastmain: and @Yoniket:, please fix your WP:SIGs; I had to repair them because they were turning the entire daily AfD log into bold Times New Roman. Thanks. Nate • (chatter) 18:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are reliable. NANExcella (talk) 11:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question Which if any of the various Canadian who's who's are reliable? In general we do not accept inclusion in any WW as indicating notability for WP purposes.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As there has been significant discussion with limited !votes yet concluded, a relist seems in order
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero significant coverage for this run of gthe mil business person. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given only 3 clear !votes, which are split after significant discussion, another relist still seems warranted
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no convincing coverage that would justify notability. Kraose (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails. AntiNom (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have these voters reviewed the scanned work listed in my URL? Patrick Lavelle had significant impact as the EDC Chairman, and specifically with Bombardier, Nortel, and APMA in Canada. Again, on a relative basis I welcome input compared to other Canadian businessmen of notoriety. My take is it would justify comparably. Please see my earlier comment for some of the physical sources. Thanks for all of the conversation & effort btw.YoNiket (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be properly referenced, but the sources aren't getting him over WP:GNG — except for the Who's Who in Canadian Business blurb, which is not enough by itself, every other source here is just a glancing namecheck of his existence in a source that is not about him, such as the primary source text of a court document (which is not support for notability) or content which quotes him as the speaker in coverage of a subject other than himself (which is not support for notability either). This is not how you source a person as notable enough for a Wikipedia article: he needs to be the subject of coverage, not the creator of or a soundbite-giver in coverage of other subjects, to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TCL 3-D TV[edit]

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

Notability: Product with no in-depth coverage; only mentioned in bypassing at time of release. -- DexterPointy (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC) Note: Relevant WP-Context is article 3D television. -- DexterPointy (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TCL Corporation#Products. As far as I can tell, it's only mentioned in passing wrt. its 2010 CES appearance. Company article is fairly short so a short mention there should be fine per WP:NPRODUCT. Notability can be revisited if a WP:SIZESPLIT ever becomes necessary.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Aren't we hitting an undue weight problem with that? - It seems that "TCL 3-D TV" is a rather obscure thing in TCL's past. -- DexterPointy (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck content above per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think an appearance at CES merits mention. It's an interesting concept recognized by sources, even if it isn't notable enough for an article. Note that I'm not suggesting a merge, but I think adding the sentence "TCL unveiled a glasses-free 3D TV at CES 2010" or something like that – maybe adding that it hasn't receive attention since then – wouldn't be undue, seeing as it's mentioned by multiple sources, if only in passing.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this is kind of problematic: The TCL Corporation article seems to be rather incomplete and partly looks like a bunch of facts throw into the mix (the "History"-section being particular awful). It's probably best to simply add any "TCL 3-D TV" info to that article's talk-page for now, which also implies that a redirect is premature. -- DexterPointy (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content above per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TCL has long moved onto being the prime manufacturer of Roku television sets, and this seemed like a sideline attempt to get into the US that just never popped because of the failure in 3DTV in general. There's not much here outside of a nice attempt to get into a market that never existed. Nate • (chatter) 02:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking vote and changing to delete, with no prejudice against redirect creation, as I am now convinced that it would be problematic to add this information to the company's page at this time. The information could be documented at the talk page per DexterPointy's suggestion, and a redirect to either the company or 3D television#3D-ready TV sets could be created iff future visitors/searchers feel it would be useful. It is unclear that a redirect would be useful at the moment.

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Sim[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, the notability test for an actor is not the fact that he's had roles -- every actor has had roles -- but in the depth and breadth and volume of reliable source coverage about him in media he has or has not received for having roles. But the only source being cited here at all is a single piece of "local kid gets acting role" in his own hometown newspaper, which is not enough coverage to get an actor over WP:GNG all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I created this article as a redirect. Have searched for coverage, but cannot see how he can meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. Edwardx (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a case of WP:TOOSOON, I think. His roles are small parts in small productions except that he had a part in It in 2017 and its upcoming sequel. He might be 'catching on' in the acting world, but I don't think he's notable yet. PK T(alk) 13:18, 11 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) 16:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Bunting[edit]

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

Questionable if biography meets Wiki notability guidelines. Some references are broken links or simply mentions in articles about others. Profile seems to be written with promotional intent and may be an orphan article. Thought it might be worth review. TheMagnusOpus (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads like a CV not an encyclopedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:53, 9 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 withdrawn by nominator. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Craig L. Rice[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL John from Idegon (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - filed in error. John from Idegon (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monkstown Golf Club[edit]

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

A golf course which has had a notability tag problem for over a decade. One of the two sources on the page is primary, the other is an archived directory listing, and a WP:BEFORE search doesn't bring up anything apart from the typical directory listings you get when you search for a golf course. Just another non-notable golf course failing WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 13:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing obviously notable. Could find any important tournaments hosted. Nigej (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable golf course....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:52, 8 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. Enigma^msg 18:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud4Wi[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine funding notices and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Elenabriola with no other contributions outside this topic. Awards are trivial. Does not meet WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, references fail the criteria for notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:15, 6 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. Randykitty (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Super High Material CD[edit]

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

This article reads like an advertisment for a CD pressing plant. Specifically, in makes the following highly contentious terms:

…allows more precise physical representation of stored bits…

…potentially better sound quality

I don't know, but bits are bits, and the vast majority of CDs in my thoroughly non-SHM collection reads without error even using burst mode in EAC, which puts into doubt the above claims that something even needs to be improved. ï¿½ (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SHM-CDs have not been a great commercial success since they were launched, and they do seem to be only made by one company rather than multiple. Maybe the article could be merged into CD. A similar article is Gold compact disc which gives a different set of advantages over standard CDs. John a s (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As additional editors seem undecided as to a specific !vote, an additional relisting is needed for further comment & any decisions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An additional relist, per the previous relist statement
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Player meets WP:NFOOTY, given he has WP:FPL appearances this season he is likely only to get more notable. Fenix down (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Parry[edit]

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

As far as I understand, this Scottish footballer has never played a game in a fully professional league and thus fails the notability requirements for footballers. Pichpich (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in looking at each team he's played for, they are all described as either "semi-professional" or "fully amateur", so he fails WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Player has played in the Scottish Championship, which is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. The article itself, Soccerway and Soccerbase confirm this. R96Skinner (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Player have good sourcing and popular in the games.
Keep His one appearance in a FPL saves him from deletion. Dougal18 (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:FOOTY.Note he has played in the Scottish Championship on 4 August 2018 the 1st game of the season as per this Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although Alloa are not fully professional at the moment, it looks like an appearance in the Championship meets requirements. Dunarc (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 14:36, 7 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. Enigma^msg 16:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attentiv[edit]

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

Attentiv is a project by Go Fish Digital (see founders), a company that is known to be involved in undisclosed paid editing (a few sockpuppets already blocked, others still pending).
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BurritoSlayer/Archive#26 July 2018
Created by suspected (not confirmed) Go Fish Digital employee: Dmrwikiprof.
Later edited by suspected (not confirmed) Go Fish Digital sockpuppet: KomodoD.
Marked as reviewed by confirmed Go Fish Digital sockpuppet: BurritoSlayer [20]
De-PROD'd by confirmed Go FIsh Digital sockpuppet: BurritoSlayer [21]
About sources: 1 written by Kat Haselkorn, former Go Fish Digital employee and published at National Federation of Independent Business, an organization Go Fish Digital is affiliated with, 1 written by Sarah Haselkorn, likely Kat Haselkorn relative, all of them written shortly after Attentiv was featured at TechBUZZ conference in November 2015. No reliable sources over time that support notability. MarioGom (talk) 09:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nominator's comprehensive source analysis, these sources aren't independent reliable sources. So fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think WP:G11 quite applies, but the outcome is likely WP:SNOW. Even if notability is somehow achieved, there is a case for WP:TNT, though not a strong one.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above and the analysis by nom. Topic also fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:02, 12 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Alves[edit]

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

Non-notable person who clearly falls under WP:EVENT category. Also there is no article on PT Wikipedia about him. Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Bbarmadillo: Did you mean WP:SINGLEEVENT rather than WP:EVENT? --Bejnar (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Bbarmadillo: If you believe that Mr. Alves falls in the category of WP:SINGLEEVENT, can I ask what the "event" is, exactly? Because WP:SINGLEEVENT suggests that we can cover the event rather than the person, which sounds fine to me, but I am not sure how you think the two can be separated. A loose noose (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the article could be Notorious plastic surgeries of Rodrigo Alves or something like this. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Am not sure I am buying that. Is it the surgeries that are notable? Or the person who received so many of them? A loose noose (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it appears that both Justin Jedlica and Rodrigo Alves are notable for the same reasons. Not a single event, but a course of actions with multiple events over time. The absence of an article in the Portuguese Wikipedia is non-dispositive. See, e.g., Rodrigo Alves, o Ken Humano, exibe abdominais 'falsos' na praia and Ken Humano gasta cerca de 150 mil euros numa noite e quase morre afogado. There are articles about him not just in English and Portuguese, but a host of languages including Czech. Rodrigo Alves je po 57 plastikách: Ken šel opět na botox! The fact that I may not find the topic and personalities interesting is not relevant, they seem to have achieved both notoriety and notability. --Bejnar (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject appears to have ample coverage in reliable published secondary independent sources. A loose noose (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep+since+subject+seems+to+meet+WP:GNG+alas.+The Gnome (talk) 20:25, 13 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. Randykitty (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hazard (Marvel Comics)[edit]

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

Is almost entirely MOS:INUNIVERSE, has only two sources, no reliable sources in Google searches, only appears in five issues according to Marvel Wikia. Is too minor to merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: H. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: H. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of suitable notability even for a merge.--Killer Moff (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: H. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are only three inline links from other articles: Professor X, Gambit (comics), and X-Men: Divided We Stand. All are passing mentions that provide suitable context. Nothing would be lost by deleting this material. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Argento Surfer and Killer Moff. Aoba47 (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete, merge or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others. Keep the sweep going! Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:20, 11 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 Homebrew (video games). Randykitty (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo DS homebrew[edit]

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

Not notable enough for its own article after being TNTed, I would suggest merging it with Homebrew (video games). — Chevvin 20:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources present in the Google Custom Search Engine. The current article may be crap, but it's certainly notable. JOE BRO 64 21:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Homebrew (video games)#Nintendo DS. Separate article adds no platform-specific content, so there is nothing substantial to merge. Plenty of space in the Homebrew (video games) article for DS-specific content until separate notability is established. Bakazaka (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it should stay since the DS systems are unique, but should be improved.. a lot. — anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.204.214 (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there was a recent consensus, even a weak one, to reduce it to a stub and start over, why are we now pondering deleting it as a stub? There is no deadline, and stubs are allowed. ApLundell (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except there wasn't a recent consensus. The article was TNTed due to points brought up in the first nomination, but since then we have seen absolutely no improvement to the article at all, and I find it hard to believe that more relevant information can be added without turning the article into WP:CRUFT. — Chevvin 23:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Homebrew (video games) as per nom. There is nothing wrong with stubs, but they do need to be specifically different to articles we already have in place. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I definitely think it belongs at Homebrew (video games). Many other popular consoles are already listed there. Gameinfirmary (talk) 12:25, 5 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. Highly questionable notability to begin with, and a wholly unsourced one line stub. Best case for this would be to merge into the author's article, but there's nothing to merge. Enigma^msg 16:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Begierde und Fahrererlaubnis (eine Pornographie)[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 12:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article name is incorrect, it should be Begierde und Fahrerlaubnis (eine Pornographie). (Fahrerlaubnis has been misspelled in the article.) It's also not a film. I don't know German, but as best I can tell from Google-translated pages, it seems to be some sort of prose work that was subsequently staged as a play. Anyhow, the author won the Nobel Prize, so the odds are it is notable. Will follow up after further research. --RL0919 (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Following up on my comment from earlier, there is some coverage, but it seems to be one of her more minor works with most coverage being in the context of articles about the author rather than this work in particular. Given that much of this is in German, it's not clear to me whether a separate article is really supportable. Normally I would say redirect to the article about the author, but since this title is a typo and the article has minimal content, I've created the correct redirect and support deleting this page. --RL0919 (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This work does satisfy the notability criteria. It satisfies GNG. It also satisfies criteria 5 of the guideline WP:NBOOK. The author, Elfriede Jelinek, won a nobel prize for literature (and other important awards). The correct approach to dealing with an incorrectly titled page is to move it, not to create another page at the correct name. The correct course of action now is to move this page over the redirect created by RL0919, and then delete the redirect created by that move (which will be at the present location of this page). James500 (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While this is by a Nobel Prize winner, it's a three-page prose piece (full text here) originally published in Manuskripte [de], one of 41 pieces she's published in that journal (up to 2015)[22]. I don't think we can assume notability for such a comparatively minor work and it's certainly not a book, so WP:NBOOK is tenuous. It's not been much discussed as far as I can tell. There are 290 hits on Google for "Begierde und Fahrerlaubnis", mostly entries in bibliographies. WP:GNG aren't clearly met, though I may be missing some German sources. By far the most in-depth commentary I can find (in either language) is this, which points out that it was read on stage in the year it was written, the actress wrapped in bandages. I doubt there's much more to say about it than that plus the premise. If it's kept (under the corrected title), I'll add those to the stub. A better solution might be a new article on 'short works by Elfriede Jelinek' or similar, but I'm not at all qualified to write that. I don't see a clear-enough notability argument to vote 'keep', but a corrected stub would be doing no harm and could expand on what's in the author's current article, so I'm going to remain unhelpfully neutral. › Mortee _talk 09:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that length of a publication is, in of itself, a conclusive factor. The Book of Obadiah, for example, is certainly a book, despite its length. And a play can be short. This says that Jelniak wrote more than one "Begierde" work. James500 (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- An article should be created for the periodical manuskripte. James500 (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed on both points. › Mortee _talk 14:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it premiered in 1986, here is a little discussion about it (pp. 163, 164), and here is an inteview with Jelinek about it. ps. the length/size of a work has nothing to do with its notableness, for example Fish Cheeks. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to clarify my point about length, just in case I was misunderstood. Short works can certainly be notable (e.g. "El emigrante"), I just don't think WP:NBOOK#5 applies to short stories in literary magazines. In that case, the right guidelines are the WP:GNG. I'm not certain this passes those. The first of the three references above is a mention, the third is an interview (sometimes argued not to be adequately independent; I hadn't seen this though, so thank you for finding it) and the second I mentioned before. I still don't object to keeping the stub on the combined partial grounds of important author, some coverage, performed on stage. › Mortee _talk 14:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no probs, im on the fence (would like to see more), hence the "comment". Coolabahapple (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I think criteria 5 applies to plays, and since this was performed on stage, I am inclined to regard it as a standalone work, and not merely as part of the periodical. James500 (talk) 16:05, 10 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Paswala[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Boleyn (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 08:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 08:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 08:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 08:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR with lack of sources talking about the subject in detail. some of the sources are promotional. --DBig Xray 09:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON, one role in film that has no article and he's well down the list in the upcoming Hollywood film, hopefully will be notable in future, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:38, 10 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 02:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michaela Horáková[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Apparently one role only. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article probably could have been nominated for CSD A7, given that it's been around for several years and notability hasn't really been established beyond an IMDb profile. – numbermaniac 08:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every actress who exists is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she's had a role — the notability test is not just having had roles itself, but the depth and breadth and volume of reliable source coverage she did or didn't receive in media for having roles. But there are no reliable sources being cited here at all, and an actress who had just one supporting part and then apparently never acted again is profoundly unlikely to have the required coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and the WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just realized that as she only has one role that we know of, a redirect to Anne Frank: The Whole Story makes sense, and I should have done that instead of the AfD. @Bearcat, Numbermaniac, and LACaliNYC: what do you think? —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, just create the redirect after the article is deleted, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:35, 10 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eri Ishikawa[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:ENT. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Hasn't won any significant/notable awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 11 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) 06:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DrugDev[edit]

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

The references here don't appear to meet WP:CORPDEPTH; article content is mundane corporate press and not about what the company did. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - sources in article are all poor as per nom. A BEFORE check elsewhere does come up with a few reliable/independent sources but while not strictly on things prohibited by CorpDepth, they don't actually discuss the company's actions, making them fairly unhelpful for purposes. There is so much coverage (much of it from their hyperactive PR department) that I wouldn't be shocked if there were at least a couple of beneficial sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is far from WP:NCORP, a preliminary search only brought up PR releases, niche outlets and passing mentions. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 16:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet current standards. DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:A7, non-admin closure.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Filn[edit]

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

A non-notable website and company that does not meet WP:WEBCRIT, WP:CORPDEPTH, or WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:A7, does not appear to meet WP:CCSI#WEB.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:30, 5 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Seed Fund[edit]

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable venture capital fund. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is routine notices, passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP. Created by Special:Contributions/Ckevinliu with few other contributions outside this topic and a history of what appears to be promotional editing. Please also see [23] to which I did not receive a response. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—I've found one article by the Sydney Morning Herald that covers the company in depth. If more sources could be found, then it may pass WP:NCORP.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - $1.8 million in investments is a laughably low amount in the VC industry. The Sydney Morning Herald article is just an interview so should be considered a reliable source. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Smallbones. There's no evidence of notability here, not least as the fund appears to be very small. Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. References are based on company announcements or are mentions only. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:01, 12 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 Balneotherapy. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Balneology[edit]

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

This article has at least three problems. First, the lede is unclear. Is it about mineral baths, hot springs, etc., for healing? That can be dealt with. Second, it is promotional. Removing that would not leave much. Third, it has no independent references, and it is difficult to find independent references on Google. (This article is found, but is not independent.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Balneotherapy, to which it adds little or nothing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect (that's a new !vote for me) to Balneotherapy - none of the sources I could find online seemed reliable. The book references in article I was unsure about, I wasn't able to make a clear assessment but the publishing house didn't seem to be significant, either here or on the polish wiki. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as outlined above; it's an alternative search term but not a different concept. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:56, 6 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. Michig (talk) 06:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signal Over the City[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:08, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A popular movie -- see Liberated Cinema: The Yugoslav Experience, 1945-2001. As the nomination was frivolous, the discussion should be speedily closed to avoid further waste of effort. Andrew D. (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per Andrew D. The film was also preserved by the Croatian State Archives [24], thus it meets WP:NFILM #4. Daß Wölf 20:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 5 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. Michig (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sudar na paralelama[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NFILM #4, preserved by Croatian national archive [25]. Daß Wölf 02:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wolfy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've expanded the article. The film was released in six different countries. Daß Wölf 02:44, 8 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. Michig (talk) 06:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sreća dolazi u 9[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NFILM #4, preserved by Croatian national archive [26]. Daß Wölf 02:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wolfy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've expanded the article. The film was released in four countries and was the first fantasy film in Yugoslavia. Daß Wölf 02:12, 8 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. Michig (talk) 06:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potraga za zmajem[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NFILM #4, preserved by Croatian national archive [27]. Daß Wölf 02:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wolfy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 5 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. Michig (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Truchlivý Bůh[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep It's easy enough to confirm that this is not a hoax -- see here, for example. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, as there is an obvious alternative to deletion -- merger to the author's page. As the nomination did not follow the correct process, other editors should be spared the effort of commenting on this frivolous nomination. Andrew D. (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG due to coverage in GBooks etc. Also called the "Mournful God" or the "Sad God". Without prejudice to that, deletion would also violate ATD and R. James500 (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above editors. Short length of article is not grounds to delete. Jdcooper (talk) 00:07, 9 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. Michig (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're Going Separate Ways[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 17:15, 21 July 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 July 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NFILM #4, preserved by Croatian national archive [28]. Daß Wölf 02:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wolfy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 5 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. Michig (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List song[edit]

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

Not notable distinction for a song. Entire list is an WP:OR farm. There is a category called Category:List songs but in each article makes no mention of the song being a list song. Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, tentatively. I see some sources that show that the concept "list song" is not made up, but it's not clear that it's notable, and even less clear that all of these examples would have sources justifying inclusion such that this list isn't just OR. Also worth noting there's Category:List songs. A spot check of some examples there turns up no instance of the phrase "list song" outside of the name of the category... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I created this because it's a well known genre, especially through the work of Gilbert & Sullivan. Many patter songs fall into this category. I suppose in its current form it should be moved to list of list songs... Guy (Help!) 23:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a well known genre then I would expect you to have found multiple independent sources to verify this. Ajf773 (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the current page is, indeed, a List of list songs. The concept is fairly obvious; I found this 2016 Salon article about it, and, of course, TVTropes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a common song genre, and it is cross-cultural common. I could mention list songs in a handful of languages, but the anglophone layman needs only to think "The Twelve Days of Christmas" for an example of a well-known one. I have added 70+ references to sources found via Google Books and expanded the article x7. It can easily be expanded further, for now I have left out e.g. Gilbert & Sullivan and Sondheim in the musical tradition, traditional folk music etc. I have tagged the article for clean-up: songs that can not be referenced to a source that reasonably places them in the category should be removed. Sam Sailor 06:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. No lack of reputable sources in the article and beyond. As laundry list song is also commonly used for this distinct song type and list song is somewhat confusing versus the more common song list, we should consider using the longer name. Without prejudice. gidonb (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sam Sailor. Satisfies GNG and LISTN. James500 (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sam Sailor; renaming might be a good idea, but that can be decided later and elsewhere. XOR'easter (talk) 19:04, 5 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. Michig (talk) 05:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prvi splitski odred[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 16:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:NFILM #4, preserved at the Croatian national archive [29]. Daß Wölf 00:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wolfy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 5 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. Michig (talk) 05:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Way to Paradise (film)[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 16:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:NFILM #4, preserved at the Croatian national archive [30]. Daß Wölf 00:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wolfy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've expanded it. The film was the subject of a paper, and the scenario was written by Miroslav Krleža, arguably the most famous 20th century Croatian writer. Daß Wölf 03:22, 8 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. Michig (talk) 05:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Passing Days[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 16:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NFILM #4, preserved by Croatian national archive [31] Daß Wölf 02:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wolfy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 5 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 conensus. Michig (talk) 05:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Companion[edit]

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

Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 16:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NFILM #4, this film has also been preserved by Croatian national archive [32], just like, coincidentally, all the other Croatian films in this batch of nominations. Daß Wölf 02:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wolfy. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 5 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mihailo Kravcev[edit]

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

Maybe it's a lack of facility with Serbian, but I'm just not finding anything to indicate this person's biography is justified under WP:NCREATIVE or other applicable criteria. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment someone who reads Serbian should assess the Google news results, as he is frequently mentioned there. Other items to assess include this article, a second article, a third article, this fourth possible source, this fifth source, a similar book review, a sixth item that looks like an interview, a seventh source that seems to be related to the book, this eight item, a profile in an artist directory that might be RS, a and this ninth item that appears to be a review. So there you go. 198.58.175.190 (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. @Bri: in the future, please do not randomly nominate articles with subjects whose coverage is primarily in non-Latin alphabets and then claim you can't find any sources. His Serbian wikipedia article is right there linked on the left-hand side, is well-sourced, and even one of his books has its own article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Serbian article has five sources in total. Are they any good?198.58.175.190 (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has coverage in Serbian reliable sources as listed above so passes WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:30, 6 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.