Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 5 August 7 August >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. While more participation here would have been desirable, overall consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 01:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coope Boyes and Simpson[edit]

Coope Boyes and Simpson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBAND --woodensuperman 10:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has a few sources already, more is evident in simple searches to verify their status as a notable, long-lasting folk music trio. The Guardian in 2016, reviewing their final album: "one of the finest a cappella vocal groups on the British folk scene" [1]. The Sunday Herald in 2011: "Music that is so purely man-made rarely sounds as organically beautiful as this." [2] --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, existing sources show that major reviews of their albums do exist, and further reviews such as this exist. They also have a biography on Allmusic which gives some verifiable info. I have added both to the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:14, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rowneybury House[edit]

Rowneybury House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG as the only notability asserted for the structure is its former ownership by David & Victoria Beckham. It is otherwise unremarkable. As an alternative to deletion, merge into David Beckham. Geoff | Who, me? 22:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — passes WP:GNG because:
    • "Significant coverage" — covered in detailed by multiple article in UK national press and magazines.
    • "Reliable" — in published sources like The Times, Ideal Home, etc.
    • "Independent of the subject" — the above sources are independent.
    • "Presumed" — the house is well-known, in the UK at least, and is Grade II listed.
It is also associated with Victoria Beckham, not just David Beckham — merging into just the latter would be sexist, IMHO, it would need to be in both these articles. Therefore keep, IMHO. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although the sources say it's a listed building I can't find it in a search for listed or de-listed buildings, and very few houses built as recently as 1930 are - sources could have confused it with Rowneybury Cottage. Peter James (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks like it is actually the older Rowneybury Cottage by the entrance to the estate that is Grade II listed, well spotted. I have updated the article with brief information on this. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, a more appropriate target might be Pishiobury. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG. There are listings for Pishiobury of which this is part: [3]. James500 (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that the house is definitely not Grade II listed. Nearby Rowneybury Cottage is indeed listed. Rowneybury House, however, is not. It isn't true to say, incidentally, that very few houses of this age are listed. Hundreds of interwar houses are. But not this one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jonathan Bowen and WP:GNG. Adding that the continued interest, not just at acquisition by Victoria Beckham, was important to me. gidonb (talk)
  • Weak Keep Just barely passes the GNG based on available sources. Chetsford (talk) 14:01, 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek (playback singer)[edit]

Vivek (playback singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mistakenly I applied afd on the article which I created, kindly help me removing it Ecstaticmind (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:38, 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 keep. The early part of the debate seemed to be a good-faith attempt to prove notability by historic footage uploaded as a copyright violation to the internet, which caused problems; however after the relist, there seems to be general consensus that this is a notable biography to have on the encyclopedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Charls (diver)[edit]

Rick Charls (diver) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Case of WP:BLP1E, and per previous consensus at multiple AfDs, holding a Guiness World Record is not enough to pass WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you look into this category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_male_divers all of the divers have minor sources. I know Wikipedia needs relaible media coverage to this record but this record is from 1983 when there were no online media resources available that is why it cannot be cited. Look at the Dana Kunze who is sharing this record with Rick Charls (diver), this article is present on the wikipedia since 2009. I think this article should not be removed due to lack of online media coverage at that time there was no online media which can be provided as reference. Yosh (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock. MER-C 06:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is clearly notable, and some kind of magnificent nutter. But finding good sources may be difficult. I spent four hours looking 1 decent source, but no joy. Nothing in Google Books. Newspapers.com and the wayback machine are Perhaps the best place to look. All the sources currently applied to the article at the moment are Non RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs)
    • Thank you.How much are you charging for crystal-gazing, now-a-days?∯WBGconverse 10:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-What the nom said.And, I don't think that this adds much of a notability, either.∯WBGconverse 10:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia clearly states in it's Identifying Reliable Sources section that broadcast videos and multimedia meet the necessary requirements to be considered as reliable sources. This guy has very reliable broadcast video sources from both ESPN and ABC Sports. The accomplishment is clearly notable and has endured the "test of time." I recently saw this video on Facebook. In one month it had close to 5 million views and 52,000 shares. While Facebook is not a reliable source, that fact that 52,000 people would share the video tells me that this World Record Dive from 35 years ago is notable. That fact that hundreds of divers have tried unsuccessfully to break this record makes it even more impressive. While I'm not a Wikipedia writer/editor, I find it strange that all Major League Baseball Players, past and present, 19,100 of them are considered notable and eligible for a page. The same privileges are given to 23,204 current and former NFL football players, some who haven't even played in a game. Yet this guy, Charls, who competed in a lower tier sport that has no notability guidelines set forth by Wikipedia has an article that is being considered for deletion. Remember, there were no online print media sources available in the 80's. Many of the print news agencies have gone out of business. His World Record High Dive along with his other high diving accomplishments have paved the way for high diving as it is today. A growing sport that has not only become the most popular event at the FINA World Aquatic Championships, but is now also being considered as an Olympic event. Charls' accomplishments are notable, verifiable and should be recognized. I vote to keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.112.16.160 (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC) — 172.112.16.160 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment ∯WBGconverse He is exceedingly notable, and belongs to a very small prestigious group of people, numbering less than 5 people, in the last 50 years. Diving >50m is rare, and requires tremendous courage and skill, qualities that mark the group outside the norms of normal diving, as as such notable. scope_creep (talk) 08:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources, please.I guess some reliable source (other than you, of course) might have appreciated the brilliance of such an achievement and hence,........∯WBGconverse 09:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Another source from a reputable broadcast media company in the United States, NBC Sports. The 1982 World Target Diving Championships from Hawaii. Charls wins the Bronze medal.

www.facebook.com/rick.charls/videos/t.100001380292341/198305776892097/?type=2&video_source=user_video_tab }— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:7f13:5a00:6157:c063:4111:1eae (talk • contribs) — 2605:e000:7f13:5a00:6157:c063:4111:1eae (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Comment Additional resources from ESPN and NBC Sports both highly respected and reliable broadcast media companies in the United States.

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df2RMwR7fWo&feature=youtu.be

- https://www.youtube.com/edit?video_id=bQgk2z1iWAw&video_referrer=watch

  • Comment Joseph, WGB would you kindly review Wikipedia’s guidelines for citing sources and what constitutes notability. Wikipedia clearly states that sources may encompass all forms of media including broadcast media. There seems to be some confusion that the only acceptable sources must be from print media. This in not the case. There is no fixed number of sources required, but multiple sources are generally recommended. Rick Charls has 4 solid broadcast media sources from the most trusted, reputable names in sports reporting. His 1983 World Record High Dive and 3rd place finish in the 1982 World High Diving Championship were covered by ABC’s Wide World of Sports with the World Record dive recently having gone viral on social media. Additional sources have recently been added on this page as per the request of WGB. They include broadcasts of his 3rd place finish in the 1982 World Target Diving Championships covered by NBC Sports and his 2nd place finish at the 1989 Mixed Pairs Cliff Diving Championships seen on ESPN. All of these broadcast media companies provided verifiable, objective evidence proving that the subject has gained significant independent coverage and recognition from very reliable sources. This recognition was not just for his World Record, but for a number of events that took place over the course of 8 years. According to Wikipedia, this sustained coverage is a strong indicator of notability as described by notability of events. While Facebook is not considered a reliable source, it does provide an online outlet to show more reputable media sources. In this case the subjects 3rd place finish in the World Target Diving Championships. This page was originally put up for deletion over a Guinness World Record certificate that was posted on the subjects page. That’s preposterous. A Guinness certificate is an award not an accomplishment. While I understand your initial concerns, I hope the added information and a better understanding of Wikipedia policies will lead you to reconsider and revoke your nomination to have the page deleted. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:7f13:5a00:6157:c063:4111:1eae (talk • contribs) — 2605:e000:7f13:5a00:6157:c063:4111:1eae (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • So far we've had two argumentative IP users, who are almost certainly the same user, using poor quality sources. A Youtube video of the event is not "significant coverage about him", it's coverage of an event that he happened to be in. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Joseph Joseph, YouTube is a video sharing service that allows people to upload videos from very reliable sources. In this case ABC's Wide World of Sports, NBC Sports and ESPN. Are you implying that these broadcast media giants aren't reliable? They're the most reliable news sources in the United States, if not the World. Far more reliable that any print media. To be featured and interviewed by these sources for Holding World Records and Winning World Championships like Charls did, is far more notable than the 23,000 football players and 19,000 baseball players that are eligible for pages. Did all of these players have significant coverage? No. They were part of an event. Half of these players were bench warmers and didn't even get into the game, yet according to Wikipedia, they are deemed notable. When someone competes in the Olympics, they are part of an event. I urge you to not only review Wikipedia's guidelines regarding sources and notability, but stop giving your opinion. Wikipedia facts only.
(non voter comment) Response to above post, whether someone similar to the subject has an article on Wikipedia or doesn't have an article on Wikipedia is not releveant to whether this subject should have an article on Wikipedia. JC7V-constructive zone 18:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response to non voter The point I was trying to make was in response to Josephs comment that the subject is not noteworthy because sources were of an event that he happened to be in. Wikipedia makes it clear that people who are part of certain events like the Olympics, Commonwealth Games, etc. are noteworthy even though the coverage in not about them.
  • Keep Subject/person has gained significant independent coverage and recognition from very reliable broadcast media sources. As per Wikipedia guidelines broadcast media is an acceptable source. In a day and age of "fake news", it is also, in my opinion, far more reliable than print media sources. Sustained coverage of this person over a period of 8 years, 1982-1990, is a strong indicator of notability, not to mention the accomplishment of holding a World Record for over a quarter of a century.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfessorGuy (talk • contribs) — ProfessorGuy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Once you wade through and ignore the massive amount of WP:SPA junk, there's not much serious discussion here. Hoping another week will produce something useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Roy, you & Joseph continue to deflect Wikipedia policies with your opinion. I'm insulted that you would call my comments "junk", especially when I am citing rules set forth by Wikipedia regarding sourcing and notability. As I have mentioned in previous posts, Wikipedia clearly states that broadcast media is a strong, reliable and acceptable source. Charls has 4 media sources from highly reputable companies, ESPN, ABC's Wide World of Sports (2) and NBC Sports. The sustained coverage over an 8 year period that includes a World Record High Dive from 172 ft in 1983 that still stands today indicates notability, yet you deflect these accomplishments by talking about WP:SPA. When putting an article up for deletion Wikipedia asks for facts as to why the article should be deleted or kept, yet you make the comment "Once you wade through and ignore the massive amount of junk there's not much to consider." Huh? Are you serious? Take some time to review Wikipedia policies. It doesn't matter who makes these comments, only that they are accurate. I have accurately explained the facts as to why we should keep this article, all supported by Wikipedia. Can you please, objectively explain, citing rules and regulations from Wikipedia, why it should be deleted. Please, no opinion. FACTS only.
  • Comment, this looks like someone readers would look for, so if not kept (note: i am not saying keep or delete:)), a redirect to High diving with more words there may be appropriate rather than a delete? Coolabahapple (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - World Record holder in high diving. I actually found this deletion debate looking up his name on the internets after watching the video of his record-tying dive. It was pretty impressive. Carrite (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes notability guidelines due to being a record holder for a significant and challenging record. Redditaddict69 (click here if I screwed up stuff again) (edits) 09:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Person has held a difficult World Record, thus indicating notability. SemiHypercube ✎ 19:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - coverage by shows such as Wide World of Sports could certainly count towards notability, and it would be helpful if more details were given such as original broadcast date, etc. That said, is the coverage a 30-second clip of an incredible stunt, or is there an in-depth profile of the diver within the coverage? Has there been continued coverage/competition regarding extreme high-diving, or was this a brief 1980s fad? Are the "World Professional High Diving Championships" [4] or the "World Mixed Diving Championship" [5] (sorry for paywall links) notable? Notability isn't temporary, so how followed/covered were they at the time? The discussion as exists makes notability difficult to judge, at least to me. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom Kolontarov[edit]

Shalom Kolontarov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bio with no reliable sources. One self published eBook, some YouTube stuff, and a few bit parts in small productions. Does not appear in any way to meet notability requirements. JamesG5 (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:Too soon. Not notable entertainer; no significant roles, fan base or contributions. --LeflymanTalk 17:05, 14 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kent School, Hostert[edit]

Kent School, Hostert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge. This school appears to have had about a 23 year history under the name Kent School, and then was combined with another school to become Windsor School, Germany. Most of the history currently in the article appears to be from before the building became "Kent School" in 1963. It would seem more appropriate to merge the history of this school under a subsection of Windsor School. If coverage of the school itself expands significantly, than it can be broken out into separate article. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This deletion proposal has simply arisen out of irritation that it resulted in Kent School, USA having to be disambiguated and a desire to see the latter as the primary article again. So there is no real logic to this: we do not normally threaten articles with deletion simply because they're stubs and have yet to be developed. Kent School, Hostert, is just as notable as most of the schools listed on Wikipedia and more notable than many. It was a major British secondary school for our Forces in Germany with over 1000 pupils at its peak and has several notable alumni including a Baroness. It was housed in buildings that have a dark and fascinating history, a witness to that was that bodies were discovered when the school was being redeveloped, and is well worth an article in its own right. There are numerous different sources that support its notability including official ones as well as press articles. It existed as part of Windsor School for around 8 years - far less time than it had existed independently - so a merger with Windsor School makes no sense. It was reasonable to challenge the disambiguation naming; deletion or merging is excessive. Bermicourt (talk) 07:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: it appears I dorked up this AfD and it ended up under the heading of Shalom Kolontarov in the main AfD page. Can someone fix that as I don’t know how.

Good job expanding the article. However, it appears that the history of Kent and Windsor Schools are entwined, and thus perhaps would be better off as one article because it does not seem, in this case, that there is enough content for the one on Kent School to be split off. Even some of the references refer to them collectively as "Kent/Windsor School". One possible suggestion is upon merge to rename the new article to "Kent/Windsor School" since they are both now closed. As far as your comment about this AfD nom, I suggest you stick to the subject, and assume good faith. In terms of final disposition, my recommendation is to keep the Kent School, Hostert as a redirect after merge. I do not propose deletion. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's all interesting stuff, but it would be better addressed on the article talk page. Running this AfD is simply excessive. Withdraw it and we can concentrate on improving the article(s), discussing their titles and how best to disambiguate them. There are plenty of ways to skin this cat without trying to delete an article because it has a similar name to an existing one. Bermicourt (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - as the nominator, I support the request to withdraw this AFD with the intent of discussing the path forward for this article on it's talkpage. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 00:11, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shuswap Lake Monster[edit]

Shuswap Lake Monster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No WP:FRIND sources available to enable an objective article to be written on the topic. LuckyLouie (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:20, 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 merge to Hefty Records. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Hughes III[edit]

John Hughes III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listing after declined PROD. Other than the New York Times profile, which alone doesn't give the subject notability, there's no evidence of in-depth or widespread coverage, or any indication of musical releases that would give the subject notability. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Merge to Hefty Records. Hughes gets coverage for being a scion and for his music production and label work; either way, deletion isn't a profitable solution, so this is the wrong venue to bring the issue. Chubbles (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge one way or the other. Bearian (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from requestor I think Chubbles' suggestion to merge to the Hefty article is reasonable. The music career doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines, and being a scion looks like a case of WP:BLPFAMILY, where it's based on his father's notability. The NYT piece is a pretty standard "day in the life of..." profile that doesn't require the subject to be notable, and musician interviews tend to be typical of the pre-album release publicity push that doesn't go that deep into the subject. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It appears that this individual has no notability outside the record label. In that case, the correct action (my opinion, of course) is to merge and re-direct. Am I missing something? As an artist (Slicker) he does not appear to be notable. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See also these sources: interview and profile (Chicago Tribune). Chubbles (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to Hefty records assuming it survives its AfD. All coverage on Hughes concerns Hefty.Sandals1 (talk) 15:54, 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. Enigmamsg 06:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Keeper (band)[edit]

Secret Keeper (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An unsigned band that has self-released three EPs and one single since 2013. Apart from this review from the enthusiastic amateur site new-transcendence.com, a close look at the sources reveals that they are all self-published or promotional YouTube tracks/videos. [[WP:NBAND]] is not met..
The article was written by an account named Thomasfilbert that matches a band member, Thomas Filbert that is neatly piped: [[Vratim (brand)|Thomas Filbert]] – and from Vratim (brand) he is neatly piped in the other direction: [[Secret Keeper (band)|Thomas Filbert]]. WP:DE-ORPHAN in effect.
Vratim (brand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Vratim (brand), a company producing drummer shoes etc. since 2013, started and run by Thomas Filbert is bundled in this nomination. Source searches will return false positives on the 1st person singular indicative vrátím of the Czech verb vrátit, but the current sourcing in the article suggests the company does not meet [[WP:NCORP]] and [[WP:CORPDEPTH]]. In any case, it is discreet WP:ARTSPAM. Sam Sailor 18:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 18:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 18:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 18:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nom's analysis, topic fails the criteria, references are mostly PRIMARY and fail WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 20:24, 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit Social Center Osaka[edit]

Jesuit Social Center Osaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG, advertising. Article is only based on related sources and not much else can be found. The Banner talk 18:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Serious WP:NPOV issues ("The interior joy and peace felt by some of these denizens of the inner city is also a revelation to many who visit") could be addressed with editing, leaving a small stub. But searches show that the subject has not received significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Searches find first-hand accounts, interviews, and passing mentions in Osaka volunteer newsletters, blogs, minutes of local civic meetings, and a few religious outlets, most of which would be considered primary sources and none of which pass the WP:GNG guidelines. The organization clearly exists and does things, but it does not appear to be notable by Wikipedia standards. Bakazaka (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete complete lack of independent souring in the article, and in a web search. Entirely fails any notability test.96.127.243.251 (talk) 03:53, 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 Speedy close as wrong venue, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gay propaganda[edit]

Gay propaganda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Forwarding is faulty and original. There is nothing in the article "Homosexual agenda" about Gay propaganda. Charmbook (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Deletion of a redirect is not appropriate here - go to WP:RFD. Hzh (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 01:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - they are synonomous. From a gay man. Bearian (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As stated above, make your case at WP:RFD. This is not an article. And regardless, it should be kept. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:53, 7 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 no consensus. There's no real agreement on what should happen here. The best I can dig out is that this should be redirected to one of two possible targets. Deciding which of those makes more sense is outside the scope of AfD. Rather than relisting this, I'm just going to close the AfD and people can continue to discuss whether to redirect or not, and if so, to where, on the article talk page. If folks can't come to a consensus there, perhaps WP:3O would be useful as a lighter-weight process than bringing it back here. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu Zhengting[edit]

Zhu Zhengting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was converted into a redirect but some editors have frequently reverted that redirect. I have researched and the subject fails general notability thus nominating here for deletion. Capitals00 (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The corresponding page in the Chinese Wikipedia, zh:朱正廷 , has been deleted multiple times. Of course, the Chinese Wikipedia may have different criteia for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93 →Message me. ← 19:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @PlyrStar93: @Capitals00: WP:NBAND includes: # Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. It appears that he passes as a member of two or more independently notable bands, even if he does not pass WP:GNG. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain: which two bands? Nine Percent and NEX7 are clearly associated. -★- PlyrStar93 →Message me. ← 13:35, 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 deleted per WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Kralev[edit]

Martin Kralev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. He was a contestant on a dancing show (as part of a group) but did not win. Also part of a song/video (again, one of a bunch of people). I can't find anything that discusses him significantly in independent sources. ... discospinster talk 17:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Appears to be an autobiography with no notable sources to support the information. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:PROMO, deleted as g11 last week, readding tag Atlantic306 (talk) 13:19, 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 01:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Challa Subrahmanyam[edit]

Challa Subrahmanyam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Let's put this to rest. Already deleted twice via prod and no changes since the last time - all of these grandiose claims are sourced to exactly nothing (personal websites aside.) I can find no evidence that this person meets inclusion criteria or any reliable sources that cover them in depth. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:56, 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 redirect to Webjet. The history is still intact so if anybody feels the need to merge something, they can. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Webjet Exclusives[edit]

Webjet Exclusives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failure to satisfy the various aspects of WP:NCORP. Plenty of mentions, a couple of pieces in non-reliable sources, but only reliable Sig Cov is on an action (Bit Coin usage) that doesn't actually tell us anything about the company. I suggest Redirect to Webjet Nosebagbear (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of duplicating that discussion, I would argue that all the content of this article is within the history section (14/15) in Webjet, making an actual merge redundant (though an altered format would be justified). Nosebagbear (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The Webjet article contains sufficient coverage of this particular sub-brand in its appropriate context. Nothing suggests independent notability in its own right. AllyD (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Webjet as per above. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Webjet – preferably section Webjet#2014 or a new section to minimize confusion.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No need for a merge as already covered. Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is the best option as any searching will point to the parent article. HighKing++ 20:23, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sleishman[edit]

Sleishman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After a search, I found insufficient secondary sources to pass the notability criteria here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Help finding sources would be appreciated! I get nearly 50,000 ghits and the good news is, they're nearly all about the drums and/or the drummer. But the bad news is, they're nearly all blogs and/or primary sources (magazine articles based on a trade press release for example). Sorting through them is not for the fainthearted. Paper magazines are the likely best source. Andrewa (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 17:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 17:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 17:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really did look for them, although I will look some more. I'm a musician, have been for almost 5 decades, and I'm very pro-music related articles, but I just couldn't find the goods to back them up. Nothing would make me happier than for someone to pop by with 2 solid sources so I can withdraw it, but I just couldn't find them myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any references I can find fail the criteria for establishing notability, references are either not about the company (the subject of this article) but about some of the products, or are based on company announcements. References fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:SIGCOV. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 20:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG, ALL the refs/sources I've found only mention this company for promotional purposes.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 03:18, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America1000 02:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

La Revuelta (season 1)[edit]

La Revuelta (season 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is composed of a 2 sentence lead and 6 empty sections and an empty infobox. Gonnym (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 17:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 17:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 17:11, 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. North America1000 01:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cállate con Carlos Sicilia[edit]

Cállate con Carlos Sicilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable talk show. Host has no article, despite claims that he is famous. Unsourced. » Shadowowl | talk 21:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Red Phoenix talk 02:10, 31 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, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Stewart-Coates[edit]

Allen Stewart-Coates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor actor with no significant coverage. The only source cited in the article is IMDb. (A deletion proposal (PROD) was posted by Reddogsix, and was removed by the creator of the article.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 17:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 17:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 17:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Sole reference is IMDB. reddogsix (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We really need to make having only IMDb as a source a grounds for speedy deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only minor roles in IMDb, fails WP:NACTOR. Narky Blert (talk) 14:07, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against renomination if the article is not improved after some time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John K. Edmunds[edit]

John K. Edmunds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per source searches, this subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Source searches are providing no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, with available usable sources consisting of name checks and faint mentions. The article relies upon a list of primary sources, which do not qualify notability, and from searches, no usable sources to meet WP:BASIC appear to be available. North America1000 14:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe this article probably meets WP:BIO requirements, however needs some strong WP:C/E, in particular WP:CS. Deaddebate (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless Deaddebate can show specific criterion at BIO that this subject passes, I oppose. I see no notability.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My thoughts on various assertions in the article and how they bear on notability, if verifiable:
    • General committee of the YMMIA: not notable.
    • General committee of the YMMIA, worked on basketball expansion: notable.
    • Relationships to George S. Romney: slight weight toward notability, although of course not everyone related to a Romney is notable.
    • Member of first Stake Presidency of Chicago Stake: notable, assuming that was the first Stake in Chicago. Or at least, the first Stake President should be notable.
    • Stake president at building of Stake Center: if the Stake Center itself is notable, perhaps? Does it have unique architecture, or was it the first of a widely-used pattern? Or were there contemporary nonlocal news reports of some dispute about the site?
    • Church board for Home Teaching: maybe notable, depends on his role.
    • Original Regional Representatives: I'd like that to be notable, although there were 69 of them.
    • President of Salt Lake temple: maybe the president of a random recently-constructed temple isn't notable, but I think any president of the Salt Lake temple should be.
    • Book. Notable if the book is notable, or sufficiently popular. Maybe proven by a review, or a citation in another work? DavidLeeLambert (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of those seems to confer notability per WP:BIO, he doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Chicago Stake was when created one of only two LDS stakes in the Eastern United States. On the other hand, its membership proably did not exceed 5,000, and was possible no more than 2,000. The other stake at that point in the eastern US was the New York City Stake. The next stake in the eastern US was the Washington, DC stake. The first president of the Washington DC stake, Ezra Taft Benson, we have an article on, but for reasons not at all related to his holding that position (well, at least not directly). The first president of the NYC stake I am drawing a blank on. I would however argue that no post 1905 stake president is notable for being such. Prior to that year we have men like Angus M. Cannon who prisided over stakes that were large enough to make them default notable for that alone. Bryant S. Hinckley in the 1920s presided over a stake with over 20,000 members, so that might add to his notability. Harold B. Lee made so many inovations that lead to the Church Welfare Program as it would exist for at least the next 50 years as president of the Pioneer Stake in Salt Lake City and its western suburbs (well, then more like outlying farm communities, it was Granger and Hunter which as now West Valley City, Utah, he also took in basically all the way to temple square, Thomas S. Monson was a member of his stake), that he might be notable for that alone. I just found this [6] when I searched for John Edmunds Mormon. I have not made it far enough in to say if it says anything substantive about Edmunds.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject are needed to qualify notability. Mormon subjects and leaders do not get a free pass for an article without said independent coverage, because there is no guideline or policy that allows such presumed notability for Mormon subjects. Subjects that the LDS church find to be noteworthy are not necessarily notable as per Wikipedia's standards. North America1000 20:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I hunted for additional sourcing and could only find passing references. If there were some inherent notability of being in charge of the Salt Lake City Temple, you'd think we'd find coverage demonstrating that. Digging deeper, I can't find an obituary in a reliable source, which would be a good info source and proof of mainstream notability. I looked for sourcing for the book, and couldn't find any mainstream coverage outside of religious books and sites. The sourcing here and that which I found fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:16, 14 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 no consensus. Look at the votes: there is NO WAY this is ever going to close as 'delete, and we are better off spending our energy elsewhere--just as closing this will be one less time sink for administrators, this AfD and its talk page apparently being a magnet for BLP violators. So I'll be diplomatic and say "No consensus", rather than the likely keep which I think most seasoned editors see here, judging by the comments. If you want to nominate this again, that's fine--but patience is a virtue. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jeong[edit]

Sarah Jeong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's unclear to me how this stub BLP existed before a few days ago since this is how it looked. If you follow the news, then you know why this article has received attention in the past few days. Since then, every agenda-pushing person has come to the talkpage to push their own point of view there. The article was fully locked and since then, interminable discussions have ensued on the talk page, with seeming nothing getting done. This person, according to WP:BLP1E should not have an article, especially since in this particular case, the 1E part is carefully left out of the article. At best, Wikipedia looks like it implies that this is notable enough to deserve an article but completely ignores the main point why anybody has heard of this person. There are already articles where a LP has said far less that this person and Wikipedia implies those people are nutjobs, while here, it pretends this person is an upstanding citizen. Since some people think the article should be frozen for two weeks, it seems like nuking/drafting it, then coming back in two weeks will at least not give the impression that Wikipedia sides with the side that thinks "nothing happened and everything should be swept under the rug". Nergaal (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep She passes WP:GNG clearly. Your bias against her is not a reason to delete her article. You can't delete any article you don't like. JC7V-constructive zone 22:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it's Wikipedia's bias against/for people with certain opinions. This joke of a stub that does not pass BLP1E, together with the drama on the talkpage blatantly enforces that bias. Nergaal (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She gets enough secondary coverage to meet WP:GNG. She is mentioned by many different outlets and she has a hook to her. Article length is no reason to delete as many articles that meet WP:GNG are way shorter than this article. JC7V-constructive zone 22:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is bad and you should feel bad. A clearly retaliatory AFD with specious reasoning. A member of the editorial board of the paper of record of the United States with a long history of previous journalism should not have an article? If you are not serious, you should be topic banned for trolling, if you are, you should be banned per WP:COMPETENCE. Gamaliel (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You just undermined yourself. Almost none of the members of the NYT editorial board have Wiki pages - despite almost all of them being far more prominent and experienced journalists than Sarah Jeong. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Speedy keep, even. She clearly meets notability requirements, and talk page drama is not a reason to delete an article. This AFD feels pretty disingenuous, to be honest. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does she "clearly meet notability requirements"? The only thing notable about her is the tweets. Should we have a BLP for everyone whose controversial tweets make the news? (that's, like, dozens of people every day). ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 August 6
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - See the article Talk page, where many editors have make the case for deletion. There is no longstanding coverage of this individual in reliable, mainstream, secondary sources. Clear case of recentism. Wikipedia is not a news site. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under WP:BLP1E. A review of the contribution history for the Sarah Jeong article shows almost 7 months of inactivity before August 2. The latest revision before Jeong's recent Twitter incident was on January 9, and cites passing mentions and non-independent sources as references. All of the recent news coverage concerns the Twitter incident instead of Jeong herself. (Note that Jeong is affiliated with The Verge (Vox Media), The New York Times, and Vice, so coverage from these sources after her employment are not considered independent.) — Newslinger talk 14:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's incredibly difficult to find additional sources among the deluge of news coverage for the recent Twitter incident, but the sources from before are insufficient. I stand by my delete !vote until this Twitter incident is notable enough to have an article, or until Jeong achieves notability by some other means. — Newslinger talk 15:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Writing off The Mary Sue as a "blog post" seems a misunderstanding of the concerns about blogs. It's not a self-published source. The Mary Sue is an online publication that gets some reasonable degree of attention, and has an editorial board. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction. I've reread the page and amended the evaluation. — Newslinger talk 16:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your restatement, it still seems to miss the truth. The Mary Sue review goes well beyond just talking about the content of the book; it repeatedly is discussed as part of a larger picture of Jeong's efforts, citing her statements in an interview, and her engagement with an outside campaign. It discusses the book in the context of discussing Jeong and her views as a whole. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've reread the page one more time, and don't think this counts as significant coverage. There is one sentence mentioning and linking to a petition that Jeong signed, and it's mentioned to give context to a quotation from the book. — Newslinger talk 16:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, writing off The Toast as a satiric site misses the mark. Did it include satire? Sure... as does The New Yorker, as does every paper that ever ran Erma Bombeck, Dave Barry, or "Doonesbury". But that is not all that it was. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reread and amended. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 16:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jeong may not be "independent" enough for her own statements to be taken as flat fact in anything that would aggrandize, but I see no way in which The Toast is not independent, and their decision to interview Jeong should not be considered an indication of her import. Do we write off CBS News on the basis of not being "independent" of anyone they interview? --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Interviews, a publication's decision to interview a particular person can be taken as evidence that the person is noteworthy, even if the subject's statements about themselves are primary sources. (Did you mean "should not be" or "should be"?) XOR'easter (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"no way in which"..."should not be". I fly the double-negative like a professional writifier, authing like only a real auther can! --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, but only in this case. Please see Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability. The vast majority of the article is Jeong's responses, and those portions of the article (75%) are a primary source. Take away the responses, and there is no significant coverage from independent sources, which is required by WP:GNG. The interview is about her book, not herself. (Additionally, WP:GNG requires multiple sources to establish Jeong's notability, not just one.) Amended. — Newslinger talk 17:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that the Harvard source provides a short bio, which should qualify as significant, unless you're setting standards very high. In any case, I don't think these shortcomings justify deletion. I'm sure sourcing could've been improved, although current events will make it much more difficult to find pre-controversy sources. As I said in my vote, this seems like a case of WP:Overzealous_deletion. Xcalibur (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a listing for her event, so the source wouldn't be independent, either. Amended. This isn't the first controversial WP:BLP1E discussion, though this is certainly one of the more heated ones. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alyssa Carson. — Newslinger talk 17:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:IP, we're allowed to use non-independent sources, as long as we clearly indicate the connection. Of course independent sources are needed, but I still say this is excessively critical. Xcalibur (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can use those sources in the article. However, WP:GNG is quite strict in requiring multiple sources that are independent (among other requirements) to establish notability in an AfD discussion. — Newslinger talk 17:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There may be shortcomings in the several sources provided, but I insist that deletion is not an ideal solution, per WP:Overzealous deletion. An even more important consideration is the possibility that, given the timing of this AfD, it is intended as partisan obstruction, which would be WP:Tendentious editing and WP:GAME. I think that concern outweighs your criticism of sources, especially since sourcing can be improved. Xcalibur (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines like WP:GNG are designed to prevent partisan obstruction, because they apply equally to all article subjects regardless of their political positions or affiliations. If you produce at least 2 sources showing that Jeong meets WP:GNG, then Jeong qualifies for an article. — Newslinger talk 18:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, current events will make it considerably more difficult to search for sources not related to the controversy. I also think your standards for significant coverage are too exacting. Xcalibur (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See this page view analysis for context. — Newslinger talk 16:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when you scale it big enough, the earlier dates look like zero. But they weren't. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm showing that Jeong's notability comes from only one event, as described in WP:BIO1E. I'm also showing the spike in talk page traffic after The Daily Caller reported on this Wikipedia article itself, to give other editors context on why this discussion is so heated. — Newslinger talk 16:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I'm showing that you're wrong, and that while there has certainly been a spike in the wake of The Daily Caller, the page was regularly visited before that; more visited than many other articles that have survived AFD. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pageview stats aren't used by themselves to establish or counter an article subject's notability. I'm highlighting the change before and after August 2 (<100 vs 40,000-50,000), and offering context to other editors, not making an argument solely from the pageviews. For my actual argument, please defer to the notability of the cited sources above. — Newslinger talk 16:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jeong was a recognized author well before this most recent dust-up, so BLP1E is irrelevant. XOR'easter (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The availability of the book now is not pertinent to how it was received then. XOR'easter (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prove it. Mainstream, reliable, notable sources remember. Not whatever random website pops up when you Google the title. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for uninvolved parties. This is an extremely active page (1500 talk page edits in 4 days) that is currently in the news and related to the gamergate controversy. Outside sources with significant followings are are directing people to the article/talk page.Citing (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient sources and hardly a low-profile individual, so WP:BLP1E does not apply. Kleuske (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lead-writer for the NYT? Passes WP:NJOURNALIST: The person is regarded as an important figure, clearly, or she wouldn't have been hired. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Speedy keep, in fact. Why would anybody want to delete this WP:NOTABLE article? That would be just plain ridiculous. Castncoot (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepity Keep Keep - the coverage of her works and the Forbes Top 30 Under 30 would've kept this page around had it been nominated a month ago. The current attention certainly does not remove notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This appears to be a case of WP:Overzealous deletion. WP:GNG is satisfied here. There are adequate WP:RS for the old article, and more RS covering the recent incident, this is enough to satisfy WP:BLP. The BLP1E restriction doesn't apply, because the original article is already acceptable, and the twitter controversy is ongoing -- this may be only the beginning of an entire arc of events, it is too soon to judge. Furthermore, the individual and the controversy are closely related, it would be easiest to document the controversy on the existing article. If we choose not to document it, the existing article can stay, there is no need to delete the whole thing (talk page drama is not a reason to delete, that can be moderated in and of itself). Finally, I have serious concerns about the motivations of this request for deletion -- I notice that the article was allowed to stand until the recent controversy, after which a request for deletion was put in almost immediately after. This gives the appearance of a partisan maneuver designed to obstruct coverage of the recent controversy -- if so, this would be WP:Tendentious editing. Controversies often elicit strong reactions, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, which is yet another reason to Keep. Xcalibur (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's where you and many others are mistaken. The original article was a prime candidate for AfD... no one bothered because no one knew about it. The article received no traffic, no edits, because the subject was not mentioned in any prominent sources. She is only notable because of the Twitter controversy - which means, she is not notable at all (unless of course we were to include every person involved in a twitter debacle that reaches the news.... which would necessitate dozens of new articles every day). ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forbes 30 under 30, Wired, The Guardian, Yale.edu, Harvard.edu, The New York Times, and more, all before the controversy. The earlier sources may not be perfect, but they should be enough for WP:GNG. The controversy itself has received much greater coverage in RS than the average "twitter debacle". Again, I must cite WP:Overzealous deletion, particularly the points on Personal Taste, Obscurity, Lack of Familiarity, and "When in Doubt, Don't Delete". A relative lack of article activity is not a reason to delete, and that problem at least has been solved. You also haven't addressed the possibility that this is WP:Tendentious editing and an example of WP:GAME, which is even more reason to Keep if true. Xcalibur (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A Google News search prior to 2018 shows plenty of articles that are more than just name dropping about her. It could have been expanded more but we can't force editors to do that, there was enough to justify keeping it. These most recent incident probably only helps to expand her past history more even if none of the tweets or other statements related to the controversy are even brought up. --Masem (t) 15:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, really? Then surely you could link some of these articles about her.... (from mainstream RS remember, not blogs or fringe websites) ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALIST, but satisfies WP:BLP1E. For example, the "30 under 30" mention from Forbes is a fairly trivial mention. Any stories from before 2018 as Masem notes above are related to the 1E in question; it's simply that they've received renewed attention in recent days (WP:NOTNEWS also comes into play here). Any notability Jeong has is simply due to the controversy she caused with some public statements. That's not enough to sustain an article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see many pre-2018 sources discussing her as a tech writer, and discussing her in context of "The Internet of Garbage". Yes, there are a few sources with questionable independence (anything from Vox for example). Also, in bringing up BLP1E, we have to recognize she was the target of some previous harassment by Sanders supports in 2016, [7], that with this additional case, 1E doesn't apply anymore. --Masem (t) 16:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - what's funny is that, had anyone found it before, the article would have gone straight into AfD because of WP:NOTPLUG. The "sources" were college posts and a book that no one reviewed. Now that it is WP:BLP1E due to the NYT hiring someone that NY Mag posits "Is the newest member of the New York Times editorial board, Sarah Jeong, a racist?"[1], the actual event is the hiring of such a person to the Editorial Board of what has heretofore been known as "the newspaper of record" of the United States. And you see, this is the event. This is the issue. Not a minor WP:BLP1E individual, little known before. Of course, now there are sources worldwide from where you can gather age, academic career, etc., but that's precisely what WP:BLP1E was designed to prevent! So delete the bio already and let's have an article about the controversy. XavierItzm (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

  1. ^ Andrew Sullivan (3 August 2018). "When Racism Is Fit to Print". New York. Retrieved 6 August 2018. Is the newest member of the New York Times editorial board, Sarah Jeong, a racist? From one perspective — that commonly held by people outside the confines of the political left — she obviously is.
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E, or move to Sarah Jeong controversy and focus on the actual event that led to her being covered in the press. Subject fails WP:NJOURNALIST and WP:NAUTHOR; only the commotion caused by the revelation of her old tweets is notable. Of course, if we followed the Trump standard, the appropriate article name would be Racial views of Sarah Jeong, so that our beloved encyclopedia would finally have TWO people with an article dedicated to their "racial views". Not saying that I would support that either… Goose, meet gander. — JFG talk 16:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the coverage is enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Arguing using WP:BLP1E does not make sense as the guideline is primarily about someone associated with an event but would otherwise likely remain a low-profile individual, and there is no indication this would be the case here. The event in any case is about her, it is her involvement that is notable. Hzh (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Her role at the Times alone makes her notable. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of coverage per WP:GNG, and the BLP1E arguments above are unconvincing. This seems like a spite AfD. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serious Nuke Delete: Not notable. There are two related instances of sensationalised fame. Who is this lady? A journalist among 32,000 in the US and multiple hundreds of thousands in the world. (Redacted) However, concerning this subject we have to battle over whitewashing sourced content to make it look better when the "claim to fame" is the tweets. Without the tweets what is she notable for? What national journalistics award does she claim? If there are claims it is as a "senior staff writer" then that is premature as too soon and I can argue that "just that alone" is not really notable. Because there is some sourcing out there does not mean Wikipedia "MUST" have an article on it. Especially of a non-notable journalist some hope will be someone. Maybe any news is good news because Wikipedia is being painted as supporting this: ACTIVIST WIKIPEDIA EDITORS FORBID ANY MENTION OF SARAH JEONG’S RACIST TWEETS IN HER PAGE. Some are there (now maybe) but watered down. Otr500 (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is hardly the first time that what is or is not included in a Wikipedia article has been reported upon. Whether or not to include the tweets in the article is absolutely a conversation we should be having, but what The Daily Caller thinks about it is irrelevant. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If you care about what The Daily Caller's headlines are, I wonder what they would be if we delete this page.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plenty of coverage, this nom just serves to prove the things that she described in her book - some people in our society just want to purge all mentions of female heroines from the Internet. Openlydialectic (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
??? How does her notability or lack thereof have anything to do with her gender??? And which source called her a "female heroine"??? — JFG talk 17:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wanna say it out loud because I don't want to offend anyone, but do you really think everyone in the world is compeltely impartial to ones gender? As for the second question, I wasn't referring to any source. I call her that. And many other people too. Openlydialectic (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Openlydialectic. However this user as a right of opinion, and I feel if JFG wants to open that discussion, JFG should go to that talk page and start a discussion. My comment was asked to be redacted for posting the opposite. I feel this is unfair because I didn't post anything hyperbolic like the person above us. JFG does have a decent question and you should be able to use a source or explain your personal logic NOT pointing out what others do. JFG you should go to the user page and start a conversation with, if not asked the comment to be redacted.Filmman3000 (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redacted for what? Are you delusional? Openlydialectic (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Masem --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG although the tweet situation is controversial but has had notable coverage her other work as an author/writer, and appointment to the NYT editorial board are independent qualifications for notability. Phil (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep known for more than this one event:journalism and her book; per Masem Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, being known for something isn't the same thing as meeting GNG. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    She obviously meets GNG including the coverage of the twitter controversy and BLP1E doesn't apply because "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event."; they don't, there are sources covering her well before (even if they may not by themselves meet GNG) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Easily meets WP:GNG. This AfD seems clearly biased and perhaps politically motivated. Proserpine (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some editors above complain about the massive attention the article has gotten, edit warring, etc. Unfortunately, the article has itself become a flash point in the news for alleged censorship of Wikipedia, as some editors are working to censor embarrassing material off the page, such as directly quoting the tweets. As painful as it may be, keeping all such reliably sourced, notable material is healthier in the long run. Don't delete or censor this article in a way that gives an appearance of favoring the political left. WP really should be apolitical, though it's pretty obvious that individual editors are not. Wookian (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Xcalibur (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep because this article seems to be discrete. Abequinn14 (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. Just some recent "news" stories about her, mostly on "social media". Not relevant in the long term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.68.55 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG, and I wouldn't mind deleting all of the single-purpose accounts that have been showing up in order to treat Wikipedia as though it were Twitter. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, this person has heavy media coverage from major and reliable sources and is more than notable. Neptune's Trident (talk) 19:52, 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 merge to List of Manitou Springs Historic District buildings. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge over Fountain Creek (Manitou Avenue)[edit]

Bridge over Fountain Creek (Manitou Avenue) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBUILD. It is one of 80 things that make up the Manitou Springs Historic District and it's already described on the List of Manitou Springs Historic District buildings. It lacks sufficient notability for its own article. The article's first reference doesn't mention the bridge directly; it only lists the historic district. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have a tendency to create articles for National Register of Historic Places listings in El Paso County, Colorado - so it must have been on that page at some point. It's fine with me if it's merged (due to its historical significance) into the Manitou Springs Historic District article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There are two bridges over Fountain Creek in the area with historic significance of some sort; a bridge over US 24 that's individually listed on the National Register, and this one. The original version of the article was still about this bridge, but included the NRHP listing information for the other bridge, which probably explains the confusion over whether this one was individually listed. At any rate, it's not, and there's nothing suggesting it shouldn't be merged into List of Manitou Springs Historic District buildings. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 12:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Fails WP:GNG, and merging with the Manitou Springs Historic District article seems the best option. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to treat this properly in the list-article item, I feel it needs to link in a "see also" way to the separately listed Bridge over Fountain Creek. Which did not yet have an article. So I started Bridge over Fountain Creek (U.S. Route 24) just now. Please anyone feel free to add to that (e.g. find and add historic HABS pictures about it), but I think it is okay as a stub article for now. --Doncram (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think the disambiguation between the two places perhaps should be improved. According to U.S. Route 24 in Colorado, the business route 24 is Manitou Avenue. So they are both on the same street. Disambiguating by street then doesn't seem so good. On Bridge over Fountain Creek disambiguation page, we have two items, with "(U.S. Route 24)" and one with "(Manitou Avenue)". Argh. What to do, if anything? --Doncram (talk) 22:28, 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 keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Germans in Czechoslovakia (1918–38)[edit]

Germans in Czechoslovakia (1918–38) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have nominated this article for deletion, though perhaps slightly hesitantly. I considered proposing a merger, but decided against it for the following reasons. Most importantly, the article is redundant. This has been subjected to discussion previously, and most of the content has been moved to Sudeten Germans and Carpathian Germans, for Germans living in the Czech and Slovak parts of Czechoslovakia, respectively. There is also History of the Jews in Czechoslovakia and less notably, Zipser Germans. The first two of these articles include a good portion on Germans in interwar Czechoslovakia, the Sudeten Germans article in particular.

Afterwards, the page became a simple redirect for a short period of time. Since then, Minorities observer has proposed to rebuild the article based on the fact that there were other Germans and German-speaking people living in Czechoslovakia, which appears to be a solid point.

However, the article in its current state attests to the fact that this is more difficult than was thought. As of this moment, it consists mostly of census statistics masked as prose. Of the six sections, three consist of lists. One for education listing two universities, one for press (with only 2 out of 10 wikilinked and only 1 other wikilink-able), and one for notable people (already more substantially included in the Sudeten Germans article). Sections are rather short, and could hypothetically be merged into a single section. If this were the case, the sections in the other forks would still be bigger and more informative.

All in all, I see no reason to retain this article. There appears to be little to actually merge, since essentially nearly everything is already included in the aforementioned articles. --Jay D'Easy (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The topic is obviously notable – see Czechs and Germans 1848-2004. If content has been moved to other related articles then we must keep this one for attribution – see WP:MAD. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, and AfD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 08:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came across this proposal for deletion of an article I still find important because it encompasses more than the sum of those mentioned to justify its deletion. Franz Kafka is one of the greatest author in the German language literature, he is more than just 'a Jew from Czechoslovakia', his uncle Bruno Kafka - a German-speaking Jew converted to Christianism - was a political leader of several German parties in Czechoslovakia. A narrow 'racial', nazi-like, definition of Germans in Czechoslovakia as either Sudeten or Carpathian (and Zipser) would not take into account these two people, and many other intellectuals, scientists and politicians in interwar Czechoslovakia who were at various degrees Germans in a country where ethnic and national self-definition were not as static as some would like to. But I am no longer much involved in Wikipedia, I only sometimes revert obvious vandalism on articles in my follow list. So I won't further take part to this discussion. --Minorities observer (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew Davidson. James500 (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per aforementioned comments and nomination. Good points on both sides are made, but they lean in favor of keeping the article. The article would definitely be more notable if it spanned longer than the 20-year period in between German invasions of the area. Redditaddict69 (click here if I screwed up stuff again) (edits) 09:17, 14 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. Sandstein 18:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asturix[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Asturix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First nomination resulted in deletion, while this article does appear to be an improvement (have not seen deleted version), none of the sources appear to be reliable since most of them are blogs and excluding that, the coverage seems to be purely local. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it is credible article with independent third party references, including reviews in reliable sources. Meets WP:N. - Ahunt (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as a part of free software, many Linux distributions have low reliable sources: there are almost none paper magazines, and the news sites are mostly online blogs and third-party pages. Thus, many free software could be mistaken as not WP:N compliant, although they are. Thus, we have to consider that confounding factor when analyzing this article. In the 2nd nomination it was determined to be WP:N worthy, and I think that hasn't changed since then. I should say that seems shady that this article has been flagged 3 times already for nomination, when many other Linux distribution share the same source problem, and it has been previously confirmed as WP:N. - Richiguada (can I help you?) 14:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Richiguada (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
  • Comment: as an OS (that has no article) maintainer I'm not really comfortable with !voting but I'll instead comment: when reading the article I get the impression of a discontinued product that failed to gain ground even when it existed, that had nothing special as an Ubuntu fork, etc. On the other hand if any notability was gained it appears to be in relation to the Hack Now contest and local television exposure (I'm not sure if this meets significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject). Hmm I fail to find an entry about software at WP:N, maybe what I was trying to locate was only an essay... —PaleoNeonate – 15:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you were looking for WP:NSOFT. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, thanks! —PaleoNeonate – 16:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:58, 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) 13:54, 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 keep. Consensus is clear. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet of Garbage[edit]

The Internet of Garbage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Shamelessly created to make a WP:Point related to the ongoing Sarah Jeong controversy. Trying to manufacture notability for a subject. No coverage in reliable, prominent, mainstream secondary sources. Remember: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. The book (or ebook, I should say, it was never printed) isn't even available for purchase. Not listed anywhere. Not even an ISBN. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read the the relevant notability guideline? It says "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." I count a potential one (Berkman Klein Center, if Youtube counts as a publication?). Can you cite any of the other criteria if fulfills? ("The book has won a major literary award. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[6] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.")ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • References 3, 7 and 9 meet the first criterion. That's sufficient by itself. XOR'easter (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The policy reads "non-trivial published works" not "any random website". What the heck is "themarysue.com"? You realize the sources you're citing as notable, don't even have Wikipedia pages themselves? The book is not even reviewed in the ZDNet URL you cite. This degree of desperation is rather amusing.... ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So well-known that it is less well-known than this particular subject? Hehehe. So you admit that ZDNet is a trivial mention. So, now we're down to 2. I guess it all rests on your measure of "The Mary Sue"'s notability. Well, let's see, Google Books turns up nothing.... and zero secondary references in Google Scholar too.... while it's Alexa rank is 20,859th... lower than many football club messageboards. Still wanna play this game? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh! So you were citing a blog called Techdirt? Thanks for clearing that up. But no, sorry, blogs don't count as notable RS. Thanks for clearing that up then, you're back down to 1 secondary source. We're agreed then, not enough to reach the notability criteria, yes? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Techdirt is suitable for this purpose per WP:BLOGS. And there is now a fourth in-depth discussion, in Poland (2016). XOR'easter (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that post doesn't make any sense to me. Can you try writing it again? Can you quote what policy in WP:BLOGS supports your claim? And what about Poland in 2016? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel like the authors allegations break Wikipedia rules such as the Assume the good faith rule, No crystal balling rule and the Don't offend other users. If anything, he is trying to make a point here because he is obviously politically motivated against the hero and that's why he's created this nom. The article passes notability guidelines too. Openlydialectic (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we did have a "rule" against offending other users, we'd neve get anything done! :D —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 16:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important comment The nominator has simply removed other people's comments as well as votes to keep the article, removed them from this very page. A few examples: [8], [9] Openlydialectic (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bad faith nomination, article is sufficiently cited. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Given an apparent bad faith nomination, coupled with the fact that WP:NBOOK is satisfied - some of the coverage is more like large mentions, but there is certainly sufficient reviews etc to cover it well enough for our purposes, I would advise a speedy close as there is no non-keep statement at this point. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While probably the author being in the news prompted creation (from redirect) of the article, editorial motivation is not a deletion rationale (and editors are motivated by many things, including news - and there is nothing wrong with that). The NBOOK bar (which is generally quite low) is clearly met by this book which is covered by multiple IRS.Icewhiz (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My perception of a nom's motivation is probably somewhat determined by their later actions in the AfD. I'd actually challenge your "motivation not a deletion rationale" in some circumstances, but i am probably in mixed views on this particular one. In any case, we seem to be meeting SNOW standards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigmamsg 18:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time tracking primaERP[edit]

Time tracking primaERP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article about a non-notable mobile app. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Creator Fasakhov has no edits outside this topic. MER-C 13:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I was unable to find any significant non-trivial coverage. --HunterM267 talk 17:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a brochure. No evidence of notability.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:14, 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. Enigmamsg 18:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steffany Mohan[edit]

Steffany Mohan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet criteria of Wikipedia notability per WP:GNG. She has done some podcasts but I'm not finding any significant discussion of her in independent reliable sources. Google search for name comes up with about 160 unique results, the majority of which are directory entries and that sort of thing. ... discospinster talk 13:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources don’t pass the reliability test, blogs and flimsy sites. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 01:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They all seem like dodgy sources to me; no mainstream news coverage, certainly. There's also a string of accounts with an apparent COI, though a local school or some such is also possible. Vanamonde (talk) 13:44, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. GiantSnowman 14:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby Printemps[edit]

* Withdraw: Subject played for Panathinaikos F.C.. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 21:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Shelby Printemps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is a soccer player. He is currently plays for FSV Optik Rathenow under 4-tier Regionalliga Nordost league. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
R96Skinner, Thank you, I missed the above mentioned. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:48, 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. North America1000 01:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Desert (band)[edit]

The Desert (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Current sourcing of the article includes two sources which don't even mention the article's subject. The third is a simple listing. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG, and they certainly don't pass WP:BAND. Was speedied on August 3rd, and has now been quickly recreated. Onel5969 TT me 11:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 12:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 12:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 12:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Certainly doesn't pass WP:BAND nor WP:GNG. Would be a candidate for salting if repeatedly recreated. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the band exists, but I don't see sufficient coverage (and neither member appears to have a stand-alone Wikipedia article); blog posts like [10] are not enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:50, 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. Enigmamsg 18:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dalil Deraâ[edit]

Dalil Deraâ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to official Olympic records (see here), this person was not on the 2008 Algerian women's volleyball team as claimed in the article. As she has no other claim to notability, she does not pass WP:NSPORT, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 12:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 12:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 12:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 12:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence she competed in any Olympic games. Doesn't pass WP:NSPORT GhostOrchid35 (talk) 05:34, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yash Paul Sharma[edit]

Yash Paul Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like failing WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 12:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 12:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:18, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Education Not for Sale[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Education Not for Sale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have concerns with the references used. For example https://www.theguardian.com/education/mortarboard/2006/mar/24/danielrandalleducationnotf is a primary source written by the campaigner himself. The other two references https://web.archive.org/web/20070829054050/http://www.srcf.ucam.org/camens/ and https://archive.is/20061008073452/http://www.officeronline.co.uk/blogs/sofiebuckland/#selection-463.51-463.113 are also primary sources and look to be blogs.

Some editors also have concerns that Wikipedia is being used as a soapbox (diff) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similar request Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campaign for Free Education --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why is this article AfDd four times in less than two weeks? gidonb (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Renomination is allowed by Sandstein after a DRVLink added --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC). First AFD was closed with 1 vote and 2 afd's were procedural keeps.  » Shadowowl | talk 13:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Following the XfD link at the DRV, this DRV was submitted after AfD #1. AfD #1 was followed by a DRV then by AfD #2 and AfD #3 and now we are already at AfD #4. It sometimes happens in 10 years but this is in 2 weeks! gidonb (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no. Shadow opened AFD 1. Since it was closed with a weak concensus ie with just one keep vote, he opened AFD 2 (at least I think that's the reason). That was swiftly kept. Then he opened the DRV without proper notifications. So I don't know there is a DRV and thus opened AFD 3. There were comments to opened up a DRV first so I closed AFD 3 as withdrawn and opened a DRV up. However, that too was closed after I found Shadow's DRV. And here we are. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 06:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NORG. The Guardian source is an interview from a blog hosted on The Guardian. The second source is just their archived website and the third source is also a blog.  » Shadowowl | talk 13:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:16, 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. Enigmamsg 01:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jose María del Río[edit]

Jose María del Río (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probably this actor, whose credits don't satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:59, 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 Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7 (non-administrator close). Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Digital For The Planet[edit]

Digital For The Planet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NO evidence of notability, lots of (not properly cited) sources, that seem to be about what they're concerned with but not about them (but it is hard to tell what they are being used as cites for). Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 12:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 12:44, 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. Enigmamsg 18:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit Social Center Tokyo[edit]

Jesuit Social Center Tokyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 09:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Setting aside the close paraphrasing of the subject's own web site text, there is no significant coverage of the subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Search finds passing mentions and routine coverage of events and announcements, mostly in niche publications specific to religious or advocacy work. Fails WP:GNG. Bakazaka (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete current sourcing relies on the centre's own web site and Sources like Facebook. There is clearly little public interest in this centre, as is evident by the lack of independent, in-depth reliable sources.96.127.243.251 (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-A G11 was apparently declined by a non-admin and so here I am.Per nom and Bakazaka.Jesuit-spam.I don't claim competency in evaluating Japanese sources but I cannot find anything significant, relying on GTranslate.@Alex Shih and Hijiri88:-Any hits in Japanese media, amounting to significant covg.?∯WBGconverse 07:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Their name appears in this event listing in the Kirisuto Shinbun and this somewhat more detailed one in Christian Today (which looks like a press release) and this one that is more detailed still and ends with information on how you can attend the seminar in question, which at least credits an author (who doesn't appear to be directly associated with the Social Center), but even that source has apparent more to say about Vincente M. Bonet and Vatican II than the Social Center. That's all three GNews hits for the Japanese name. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you:-) ∯WBGconverse 09:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Catholic Church in Japan — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 11:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ILIKEIT? ∯WBGconverse 12:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- A church ministry with only four staff is unlikely to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not pass GNG Chetsford (talk) 14:04, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce L. Olsen[edit]

Bruce L. Olsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Source searches are only providing passing mentions; does not meet WP:BASIC. Most of the sources in the article are primary, which do not establish notability. North America1000 01:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unlike the person who nominated this article for deltion, I have a copy of J. B. Haws Oxford University Press published The Mormon Image in the American Mind. That book devotes a whole 5 pages to significant discussion of Olseon's impact on LDS public relations. I think this is enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BASIC requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, not just one (bold emphasis mine). North America1000 02:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet is also says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", which would suggest if the coverage is substantial enough in one source, that is all we need.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I view "multiple independent sources" as exactly as it reads, with multiple meaning more than one, as in two or more. Unclear how one could ascertain "multiple" to suggest that only one source is needed, which isn't the intention of the wording in the guideline at all. North America1000 12:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • The passage I quote makes the multiple only needed if the "depth of coverage" is not sufficiaent in one. Of course, this all boils down to your attempts to block off all LDS Church sources, which is questionable in its own right.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BASIC does not state that only one source is needed if it's content about a subject is substantial at all, not even in the slightest. Notice how the lead of the section states that multiple sources are required. This also pertains to point #1 of the section. Point #1 of WP:BASIC is intended to be used when two or more sources exist that provide a typically lower depth of coverage, whereby they can be combined to demonstrate notability. The lead information and point #1 of WP:BASIC is listed verbatim below, with the exception of the bold emphasis I have added, to emphasize "multiple", which means two or more. North America1000 01:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.


  • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.
  • Comment -- The question is whether the subject is notable, not whether it is verified by multiple sources. I norm ally refrain from voting on LDS AFDs. In this case the source is a book from a leading UK academic publisher. In devoting a number of pages to the subject, it will inevitably have multiple sources. This is not a case where we have snippets from a couple of newspapers or websites of dubious reliability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Given the few actual !votes, despite good discussion, I think a relist is warranted.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I'm not convinced that being managing director of public affairs of the Mormon Church is notable enough to warrant an article. The public affairs position isn't mentioned at all in the LDS article, so it's unclear how significant it is to hold that title. The single book used for sourcing seems like it would be a better prospect for an article, but it's still only one source, as discussed above. Absent other sourcing, this fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:00, 14 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. Enigmamsg 18:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Arts Academy Charter Middle School[edit]

    Arts Academy Charter Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Unreferenced article on a middle school. Does not pass WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES or GNG. Wolfson5 (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Disagreement re delete/merge warrants a relist, additionally, please remember to provide !vote justifications
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. as is standard practice. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I only suggested Merge as there was no education section in the Salisbury article and it could be mentioned there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No indications of notability. Tacyarg (talk) 23:38, 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 redirect to Oliver D. Crisp. Sandstein 18:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Journal of Analytic Theology[edit]

    Journal of Analytic Theology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable, relatively new, journal. Not indexed in any selective databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded with reason "im contesting deletion since several editors per the history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Journal_of_Analytic_Theology&action=history have tried improving, copyediting, sourcing, if you still feel otherwise you may renominate for deletion, thank you" (one of the stranger de-PROD reasons I have encountered, this goes for 99% of all PRODded articles...). No changes to the article were made, so PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - this journal might be important for those in the academic study of Theology, although I do admit the article needs extension (it is currently stub status). Vorbee (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep per Vorbee rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, complete fail of WP:NJOURNALS, indexed nowhere selective, barely a smattering of citations, no independent sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Oliver D. Crisp, one of the founders of the journal, where it is mentioned. This looks like a solid academic journal put out by the University of Notre Dame. But it seems WP:TOOSOON for an article, as I could not find it in our usual selective databases and ATLA yielded no results. It is a plausible search term, however, and basic facts (such as existence) are verifiable, so a redirect seems reasonable. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 04:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect per Mark viking. XOR'easter (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment according to WorldCat, the journal is in 60 libraries. Its papers appear to be cited in journals such as Scientia et Fides (currently a redlink) or Open Theology, both open-access papers in its field; an argument to keep based on those citations would be circular. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: The Keep !votes could use notability-related justifications. However a relisting was in order due to a balance between relisting and deletion.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to the editor as suggested. DGG ( talk ) 20:51, 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. Enigmamsg 18:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Kar Har Maidaan Fateh[edit]

    Kar Har Maidaan Fateh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The song does not satisfy any of the criteria mentioned for WP:NSONG and can easily be merged into film article. Topping the chart solely does not make it notable. Not moving it per WP:BOLD because creator (Ayush Gupta At Wikipedia) is singer's fan and indulges into edit warring per past experience. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: In the case of specific disputes on a notability guideline, please remember to cite the specific criteria and why/why not it applies
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: (With a nod to the previous relist note)
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:24, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Tee Ali Arabmoney[edit]

    Tee Ali Arabmoney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are unrelated, do not mention subject, or are press releases. reddogsix (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Please indicate how the individual meets the WP:N criteria. The individual lacks in-depth, non-trivial support. The "References" are single line mentions at best and the award was for his models, not the individual. This is far from a notable individual and smacks of advertising. reddogsix (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The "references" are hardly adequate, the Sun and Philly items are single line items. The individual lacks in-depth, non-trivial support. The "References" are single line mentions at best and the award was for his models, not the individual. This is far from a notable individual and smacks of advertising. reddogsix (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unnecessary repeating his comment while subject is notable and have reliable resources. Entradakoi (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Entradakoi (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 20:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 20:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 20:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: I'm going to relist this again, but could both sides (though especially the !Keep voters) please provide justifications in their !votes
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here are the sources in the article and why they don't meet WP:GNG:
      1. The Sun: Not significant coverage. Passing mention. Article is about someone else.
      2. SoundCloud: Not independent. Listings of person's music.
      3. Philly.com: Not significant. Passing mention. Article is about someone else.
      4. Women4Africa Blog: Not significant or reliable: Blog post with passing mention.
      5. Dailymotion: Not significant or independent. Video showing people affiliated with person.
      6. BellaNaija: Not significant or reliable. Blog post that doesn't even mention the person.
      7. YouTube: Not significant or independent. Video showing people affiliated with person.
      8. Afro Model Awards: Not significant. Award listing for Afro Model Awards, an award that isn't prestigious enough to confer notability on the person.
    Sources not cited in the article are no better. — Newslinger talk 23:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. the sources are mostly listings, and not al lthe material is verifiable. DGG ( talk ) 20:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment just mentioning that The Sun is definitely not a reliable source, it's a tabloid of the worst type with a reputation well below the Daily Mail, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:38, 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. Yunshui 雲水 13:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    VMmanager[edit]

    VMmanager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Absolutely no coverage from reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 19:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 19:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 19:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 19:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 19:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of these are reliable sources. AlternativeTo is user-generated content, the first blog is in Wikipedia's spam blacklist, and the second blog offers a listicle with no significant coverage of the article subject. — Newslinger talk 22:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting to use any of those as a source for article content, I'm merely entertaining the idea that some notability to WMmanager exist. -- DexterPointy (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, those sources wouldn't prove the product's notability, since WP:GNG requires significant coverage from reliable sources. The non-blacklisted sites could be used to support the article content (when better sources aren't available), but they won't do much in this AfD discussion because they're not reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 08:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Got a bunch of scholar hits, but they're not talking about this particular piece of software (rather they're just using camel case to refer to a generic class, but that's beside the point). The search results are further confused by the existence of an "Oracle VMManager". One passing mention in "searchservervirtualization.techtarget.com" and no other sources lead me to conclude the software isn't notable. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No apparent coverage in sources other than the usual man pages and marketing. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:39, 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 redirect to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?. None of the !votes argue for keeping this article, but there is no consensus on whether this should be merged into the Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? article. Whether or not such a merge is desirable can be discussed on the talk page of that article. I am therefore closing this as redirect, leaving the article history intact in case a merge is deemed desirable. Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    50–50 (game show)[edit]

    50–50 (game show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Article on an obscure short-run Italian game show has been unsourced since 2014. I can find no mainline sourcing for it, and the Italian Wikipedia version only includes links to two Italian TV blogs. In short, I cannot establish the notability of this one under WP:GNG. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: It was suggested that this article be taken to AfD at the Naming conventions (television) Talk page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:27, 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) 09:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?: The information in this article is useful and relevant (both the format description and the version table). It should not be removed from Wikipedia just because it does not appear to meet the standalone WP:GNG criteria. Modernponderer (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - This article claims to be a spin-off of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, but Who Wants does not even mention it, so I can't support a merge of something that has no sources that claim this is indeed a spin-off show. If sources are found which aren't enough for GNG, but are good enough for inclusion in Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, then it should be mentioned there, but not even close to the amount of information this article currently has, so in both cases, not a merge. --Gonnym (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • So are you saying that, in case sources exist, Wikipedia editors should have to rewrite the content from scratch just because there is too much of it right now in your opinion? Modernponderer (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm saying that an article should be balanced and not have one spin-off have undue weight just because it can. At the very least, start with the information that is sourced (which in this current situation, the 3 sources you provided just talk about the premise of the show. The International versions table currently has no sources. I'm assuming that if you get sources for all those, then the GNG might be passed anyways, leading to this article having its own one). --Gonnym (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Unfortunately, [14] and [15] round out the sources I could find at this point. But even at this stage I cannot support deletion, as there is already a significant chunk of content that is covered by these. Maybe someone else can help? Modernponderer (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?, where it should be mentioned as a spinoff. Anything more than a couple of sentences would probably be WP:UNDUE. Based on the sources above, meets WP:V, but fails WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 14 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. Yunshui 雲水 13:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Klaudia Rynkowska[edit]

    Klaudia Rynkowska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    It does not meet Wikipedia's nobility guideline. Its too vague BrantleyIzMe (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Her victory at the III Edition Poland Cup might make her pass WP:NGYMNAST, which states: "Artistic gymnasts are deemed notable if they [...] won their country's senior all-around or individual event finals national championship while competing for a country who qualified a full team into the most recent Olympics or senior World Championships". The Polish Artistic Gymnastic team had qualified for the 2000 Olympic games, and I don't know if this event she won in 2004 was before or after the 2004 Olympic games. Emass100 (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several problems with your claims. First, there's no evidence that III Poland Cup is the same as the Polish national championships. Second, Poland did not qualify a full women's team for the 2000 or 2004 Summer Olympics. There was only 1 Polish female gymnast at the 2000 Olympics (Joanna Skowranska whose best finish was 74th on the uneven bars) and none at the 2004 Olympics. Papaursa (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete As I pointed out above, she does not meet WP:NGYMNAST. There's also no significant independent coverage to show that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:35, 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 redirect to Police station. Yunshui 雲水 13:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Police office[edit]

    Police office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    DICDEF, not all general terms for police jurisdictions and subdivisions are notable. Cites no sources. Vague title. Even when the term "police office" is used online, it isn't in this way.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 04:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Both this and police detachment satisfy GNG easily and by a wide margin. There might be scope for merger with similar units, such as precinct or station, but this is obviously notable. This article is certainly capable of being expanded beyond a definition. If you search for "police office shall" or "police office may" and cognate expressions such as "must" for example, you find a considerable body of legislation from several countries relating to how the law requires a police office to be run. There is also a lot of commentary in treatises etc. Likewise on a search for "police office"+magistrate. The expression "police office" does seem to be a term of art. James500 (talk) 00:39, 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 03:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Not even worth a redirect. —МандичкаYO 😜 04:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • In all fairness, "not even worth a redirect" is absurd. This is a very likely search term. James500 (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or redirect to Police Police station. "Police office" might be notable as a topic, but probably not when referring to a "form of division of a geographical area patrolled by a police force". As it stands, this article isn't useful, doesn't actually refer to the concept many people think of as a "police office", and would be a dictionary definition if it does refer to the correct concept. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • A better target for redirection would be Police station. Deletion would certainly violate WP:ATD and WP:R as this is obviously a plausible redirect. James500 (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right that Police station is the best redirect target, and I've changed accordingly. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and redirect to Police station. The article is virtually empty, so there's nothing in the edit history worth preserving. Reyk YO! 13:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect - (to Police station) This is an unwarranted article that currently doesn't have independent notability and is a duplicative CONTENTFORK. I can't see why there are delete !votes that say no redirect. It is a possible search term, no damage is inflicted, and as the cliche goes - redirects are cheap. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:47, 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. Rough consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 10:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Home Energy Resources Unit[edit]

    Home Energy Resources Unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Essentially, WP:TOOSOON. There are certainly reliable sources, but it seems to me that this is basically a singly flurry of interest in something that may or may not become truly notable in the future. TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The BBC article and Reuters report, both cited in the article, taken together would seem to meet WP:SIGCOV. WP:TOOSOON would not apply in that case. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It clearly applies as the articles are merely about a prototype. It may not work as promised or for whatever reason may never go into production. —МандичкаYO 😜 04:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ​​Yes, it's a prototype, but is it a notable prototype? Prototypes aren't automatically WP:TOOSOON, even if they fail to be developed further. Yehudi lights are notable enough to be a GA, even though they stopped development in the 80's. I'm not saying that, as it stands, we could make this article the same (there aren't that many references yet), but something more like the Lanchester petrol-electric car is easily achievable with even the current level of sources. TOOSOON doesn't apply here, only "If [sufficient] sources do not exist": an article could be created if "its subject should be verifiably notable due to its discussion in sufficient independent secondary reliable sources." WP:TOOSOON isn't a replacement for WP:GNG, it's not an argument against including recent events – instead, it's a counter argument when somebody pulls out a WP:CRYSTALBALL and says "Well, it could be notable in the future". Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY, so once it meets WP:GNG it won't stop being notable; therefore, what we need to discuss are the sources. I suppose it'll be kind of hypocritical for me not to offer my analysis when I'm asking the delete !voters to do so though, so I'll go first:
    • BBC Article (April 4), by BBC Science Correspondent David Gregory-Kumar. Although it's been called a blog by Gregory-Kumar (see vid. below), I'm fairly sure the BBC retains final editorial control. It isn't that long, at 500 words, but since the whole article is about our subject, supplemented by the video below, I think it meets the requirements as our first reliable source.
    • YouTube Video appears to be a copy of an official BBC Midlands segment, again by Gregory-Kumar. ~3 minutes long, divided approximately into 1 each of the inventor demonstrating the prototype, Gregory-Kumar explaining the mechanisms at the workshop and the host and Gregory-Kumar discussing the potential economic impact at the studio. This is the same source as above, and together I feel it firmly represents significant coverage by one source.
    • Reuters Video (July 2, Matthew Stock) is a lot shorter, only 1:59 – though my initial concerns as to its sharing footage with the BBC video don't appear to be a problem: on review, the camera angle of BBC footage doesn't seem to be the same and cutting out Gregory-Kumar shouldn't produce that perspective. I think it does have the same footage as another source though. Possible issues: Independence (as a distinct source), depth of coverage
    • VoA Video (July 14, Julie Taboh) Same thing, slightly longer at 2:18. This is the source that I think shares footage with the Reuters video. The only reason I'm mentioning it as well is because the main content of both seems to be the dubbed voice over, and not the original track from the footage. Honestly, I can't quite put a name to the format (a sort of mini-documentary thing?) but it seems like pretty standard journalism from reliable sources. Possible issues: Independence (as a distinct source), depth of coverage
    • YouTube Video (July 5, Martyn Andrews) This is from the verified RT UK YouTube channel, and while RT has been criticized on neutrality, this being relatively apolitical I think it should be considered reliable. It's longer segment, close to 4 minutes, also covering how it works and links to economic implications. Possible issues: Reliability (as a potentially biased source)
    • Daily Mail Article (May 9, Claire Duffin) I think this is slightly less in depth than any of the above sources, but no other issues stand out. Overall, it should make a good supplementary source. Possible issues: Depth of coverage
    There are of course other sources, both already cited and not, but on initial evaluation, they look to be of lesser reliability and I don't think they will be used to establish notability, though they are decent supplementary sources for confirmation and support. Interestingly, it appears to have recently achieved some international coverage, though I can't read Vietnamese that well and don't feel confident assessing that source, so I will also avoid trying to use that to assert notability. Overall, I think that the subject of the article does meet GNG and cannot be deleted per TOOSOON, but I am open to striking my !vote should the delete rationale be revised.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it a notable prototype you ask? No, not at this point. That there are articles about the prototype does not equal GNG. In fact, there are very few articles. If this were truly a revolutionary idea that is likely to have real impact, I would expect much more significant coverage and frequent updates about the status of the project, including investors lining up and studies on practicality, feasibility, and sustainability. We would have dozens of separate, independently researched articles by now. The fact that one of your sources is the Daily Mail (which mainly just recycles other content from legitimate sources) is an indication there is a serious lack of coverage. —МандичкаYO 😜 17:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikimandia: I've struck the Daily Mail as a source, but I have to ask, is your requirement of "frequent updates" based on policy or your own interpretation of notability? Our policy wrt. notability seems largely consistent, whereas outside of Wikipedia, depending on use, notability varies from "nearly any random person who has achieved anything at all" to "people who are at the top of their fields". It could be a very broad term, so if you could point towards a policy like WP:NOT or an essay (maybe an WP:AFDP that you've seen?) that clarifies what kind of coverage you mean, it would be much appreciated. I am not saying it's a revolutionary idea (it looks to me as if it were just charcoal production + an incinerator, both technology we already have), but I don't feel the nomination has sufficiently disputed the significance of coverage or explained why the nominator feels article doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For the reasons I stated, there is insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Look at the dates of the coverage. It's a handful of articles over a short period originating from very few general sources, highly typical in our news cycle. Basically, a guy came up with an idea and made a prototype. Are there ANY peer-reviewed studies that testify it actually works? Are investors lining up? Are factories getting ready to produce them? Is it being demonstrated at green expos? No. There is nothing but a prototype. At this point it's not even worthy of being merged with another article because there is such little scientific information confirming it's efficacy. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikimandia: How are you interpreting WP:GNG? It's been demonstrated to the news sources, and I'd assume the BBC at least is sufficiently reliable to not publish when a demonstration fails. I don't see why the lack of academic papers would be a factor, seeing as there's nothing of academic interest here. Pyrolysis and combustion are both things that are well known to the scientific community, and plenty of commercial uses: e.g. there are ovens that clean themselves through pyrolysis. The person inventing the first nutcracker wouldn't have published a scientific paper, because it was just another type of lever. It's not even novel on the fuel generation aspect, since pyrolysis is a well documented method of biofuel production. The only matter of interest is its commercial application, and that's what the news reports cover. Yes, you're saying the news coverage doesn't count as WP:SIGCOV, but it's not clear to me why. Are we treating this under WP:N(E)? The coverage is spread out over several months, and there is still coverage ongoing (the Vietnamese article was published less than a day before my analysis of sources), so if we are using N(E), this likely falls under WP:RAPID, so why not draftify it? It's just not at all clear to me which guidelines that you're using, so I can't really address your argument. Are you using WP:ACADEMIC? WP:1E? WP:EVENT? WP:ORGCRIT? Another guideline or essay? I understand that there are issues with the article, but I don't know which ones you think justify deletion, and the discussion is unlikely to progress unless you elaborate a bit more on your rationale.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The Cube Root Of Infinity (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I felt the BBC and Reuters reporting were the best WP:RS. The other sources are useful if they have information those two don't, but aren't really that great for establishing notability. I think the Local Gov citation is interesting though, and if anyone knows more about its circulation and reliability (is it a sort of official thing?), that would be great.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep – The topic meets WP:GNG, as per having received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Some of the sources are more independent than others, but overall, meets GNG. North America1000 02:22, 14 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. TheSandDoctor Talk 19:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Maengmum (given name)[edit]

    Maengmum (given name) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    It's a nickname, not a given name. As far as I know, we don't maintain anthroponymy pages for nicknames. Paul_012 (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:06, 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 keep. Yunshui 雲水 13:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Johan Engholm[edit]

    Johan Engholm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable unreferenced stub since 2006. Swedish version is identical. » Shadowowl | talk 09:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I expanded the article a bit and added references that speak of Engholm's guns as rare and valued by collectors. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:01, 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. Yunshui 雲水 13:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Mystery Case Files: Fate's Carnival[edit]

    Mystery Case Files: Fate's Carnival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Searches did not turn up nearly enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 16:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:22, 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 02:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:27, 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. Michig (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    List of notable fighting dogs[edit]

    List of notable fighting dogs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Entirely unsourced; the "Sporting Dog Journal" linked doesn't appear to be the illicit one used by dog-fighters. A ridiculous list; none of the dogs have Wikipedia entries (nor should they). power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The Sporting Dog Journal is well known and has been around for a long time. A description of the point system is at the top of the article. Articles for some of the fighting dogs will follow shortly. Why do you feel notable and famous dogs should not be included in Wikipedia. As you see many are already in Wikipedia: Category:Dog monuments, Lists of dogs, etc. IQ125 (talk) 09:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Unsourced, meaningless except to those who already know what it means, an "in-universe" list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 02:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep: None of us like dog fighting, but we have to accept that it did happen in the past and continues to happen now. These fighting dogs were all recognized by the Sporting Dog Journal and graded on a merit system. Many of these dogs are quite notable as they are the progenitor bloodlines for dogs that are being bred today as peoples pets and some unfortunately for dog fighting. Wikipedia should not delete a list or article because the topic is not pleasant. I believe the list will expand and some of the dogs will have articles written about them as there is a significant amount of information to support an article. IQ125 (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete. Is The Sporting Dog Journal a reliable source? No. Is this point system used by anybody other than the journal? Who knows. There's so little context I can't even tell if these are modern dogs or from when this was tolerated. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete. One of the dumbest articles I've ever read. Absolutely no evidence of notability. A list of meaningless stats and fancruft. Ajf773 (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The SDJ is clearly not an RS. (Tangentially, get a load of their disclaimer. Note the invocation of their "Fifth Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression"—the right to incriminate themselves, evidently.)
    Looking for other sources to satisfy WP:LISTN, I can only find a few highly unreliable ones: game-bred.com, gamedogshistory.com, some blog although there are a decent number of sources for List of dog fighting breeds. A book-length RS treatment of status and fighting dogs does not include names, let alone lists, of famous or (grand) champion individuals [16]. The British Parliament in the 18th century seems to have produced a report briefly discussing "famous fighting dogs, and their value," but I can't find it and it wouldn't be sufficiently general or up-to-date. Overall, the topic of famous individual fighting dogs fails LISTN and GNG, regardless of dogfighting's legality or WP editors' opinions about it. FourViolas (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete- uh, this is like having a list of the most prolific drug dealers. It's an illegal activitiy, and any records can't actually be verified by any reliable source. Nothing indicates these are 'historic' stats. Also, linking to the main page of the magazine's website is not proper sourcing. Also, as discussed above the magazine seems like a pulp magazine without any indica of traditional reliability. Plus, none of the dogs have their own articles, and having a standalone list without -any- blue links is not good policy. Anyway, no. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, the single cited source appears to fail RS and most likely V, the list is appallingly drafted, fails GNG and worst provides absolutely no context at all for the subject matter (ie. when and where these illegal fights apparently occurred, not even a century and/or continent). Cavalryman V31 (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    • Delete, does not meet WP:LISTN, none of the dogs listed appear to be notable (wikiarticles?), where are the books that discuss them?, a search on WorldCat does show that there are books on dog fighting, these might include famous dogs but without info on any this is a delete from me. ps. even if this is a notable topic it would need to be renamed, removing the word "notable".Coolabahapple (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    heres a book that appears to include information about famous fighting dogs - Thirty Years with Fighting Dogs, but it may be more appropriate to included it in a "Further reading" section of Dog fighting in the United States. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree—as with the 1700s British Parliamentary report on dog fighting, this out-of-print 1935 U.S. book could have relevant material but isn't going to be general enough to support an encyclopedia-quality standalone list of famous individual dogs. FourViolas (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:25, 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. Some people felt that the sources added during the AfD were sufficient, but there's no clear agreement on that. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Prince Rafael of Orléans-Braganza[edit]

    Prince Rafael of Orléans-Braganza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    He's the prince in the line of succession of a throne that does not exist anymore since 1889. The article about him was deleted from Wikipedia in Portuguese. The only source is about the death of his brother, not him. Anyway, in Brazil the former Imperial Family is not that popular, and it usually barely receive some coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. That's why current members of the family are usually deleted from Wikipedia in Portuguese: because they are actually not notable. Bolhones (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bolhones (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose He is the last remaining, acknowledged male dynast of the younger generation remaining in the House of Orleans-Braganza, and as such the recognized heir-eventual of the claim to the abolished monarchy of Brazil. While his family was exiled by coup d'état in 1889, a referendum on restoration of the monarchy gained sufficient political momentum to be placed on the national ballot as recently as 1993, drawing 12 million votes. It was widely acknowledged that Rafael's family were the chief representatives of the royalist cause, a branch of which was expected to be nominated for re-enthronement if the referendum had passed. Unlike other political figures, the monarchist movement is less driven by individual role than by the dynastic claim to which Rafael is heir. That political movement was well covered in English media, in a less charged and partisan way than in much of the foreign press at the time. The millions of votes cast for restoration of a dynasty whose last monarch, Pedro II, is still widely revered for his model constitutionalism and his dynasty's unpopular but principled opposition to Brazilian slavery, is not so distantly in the past as to merit being forgotten or ignored, whatever Portuguese Wikipedia's handling of it may be. FactStraight (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Disputed title to an abolished throne is not inherently notable. No secondary sources showing otherwise. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 06:40, 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 12:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. He appears to pass WP:GNG. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep New Sources are reliable. Emily Khine (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete claimants to deefunct thrones are not notable for such, and there is no other suggetion that the subject here is notable for any action on his part.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not write off a person simply because they are heir to a "defunct throne". Wikipedia has dozens of articles on heirs to defunct thrones, particularly regarding German and French royal persons. 08:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Emily Khine (talk)
    • Keep after improvement and additions of new sources by Eastmain and other contributors. --1l2l3k (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment we generally do keep articles on people in the direct line of succession to being the pretender to "prominent" monarchies. That said, references like [17] are almost worse than having no references at all. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 01:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The FAZ reference is the only good secondary source, and multiple such sources are generally required to show notability. I'm not convinced there is enough evidence at the moment, although something may exist out there in the Portuguese language. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep after improvements and sourcing improvements. Subject appears to meet WP:GNG. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:15, 14 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. Yunshui 雲水 12:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Politics And War[edit]

    Politics And War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    A web-browser based game. Article is only sourced to the game itself, and I have not found significant coverage in secondary sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:21, 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_August_6&oldid=1142224133"