Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 November	2 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to National Premier Soccer League. Fenix down (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland Roots SC[edit]

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

Delete per WP:BALL. Bbarmadillo (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Premier Soccer League per previous consensus. Let's wait for more info about this Founders Cup before we make an exception. Jay eyem (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 16:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. This may well be notable at some point, but we'll have to see, and it's certainly not now with its one primary source. SportingFlyer talk 01:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Desyn Masiello[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Completely unreferenced article with little claim to notability - doesn't appear from the article that the subject has done anything notable (in terms of music; this was backed up by a search). Little to no third-party verifiable sources. Hiàn (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hiàn (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hiàn (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No GNG, no WP:MUSICBIO. --1l2l3k (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii Tea Party[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. No coverage except from primary sources directly affiliated with the organization. I did a search for coverage, and the best I could find was this Hawaii Reporter article, written by someone directly affiliated with the organization http://www.hawaiireporter.com/tea-party-momentum-is-alive-and-strong-in-hawaii/. May also violate WP:NPOV because it makes unverified claims about the minor party's voter base. HighFlyingFish (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither this article nor Virginia Federation of Tea Party Patriots appear to be notable. The only relevant news stories that I could find were mainly about the IRS including the leader(s) in their investigations of Tea Party leaders during the Obama administration. But I see nothing distinguishing about this. Peaceray (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article subject appears to be have significant coverage thus failing WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON, but as the Tea Party movement has since largely past into history, it is unlikely that it will meet WP:GNG in the future. Its one brief mention in an academic book, is clearly insufficient to be considered notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, good nomination and rationale. Merge content to Hawaii Republican Party.--1l2l3k (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered[edit]

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

Not finding enough in-depth sources about this group to justify a keep under WP:NORG. I've looked on GNews, GBooks, Newspapers.com, PubMed and only found one substantial source (and even then, it's a local news item about a meeting the group is holding [1]). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NORG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could find nothing substantial on this organisation in reliable, independent sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Felix James Meo[edit]

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

insufficient information to meet notability. From what I see online, it's his first season, and ti's with a development team. DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I declined the speedy deletion, but agree that the notability is probably lacking. Open to starting a new article if things change. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see significant independent coverage in the article and my own search didn't find any. Looking at his pro cycling record I don't see that he meets any of the notability criteria at WP:NCYCLING. I see no results for 2018 and in 2017 his best result was 140th with no participation in a major event. Papaursa (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nuages Jazz[edit]

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

not notable, difficult to find sources on this subject Vmavanti (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has existed for 11 years and has only one source, which amounts to a press release / advertisement for one of their performances. I don't see any other sources (in English anyway) apart from the same thing or mentions in blogs. Doesn't meet any WP:BAND criterion. EddieHugh (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: A brief piece on the band's history from Panamá América can be found [2], as can two later El Comercio items on individuals from the band: Sven Pagot [3], David Bonilla [4], the latter merely a lifestyle piece, though appearing to indicate the band was ending in 2016. None of these is sufficient for the WP:MUSICBIO criteria, though I am cautious about the uncited award claim and so open to changing my opinion if evidence can be found that they met criteria 2 and/or 7, for example. AllyD (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good work finding those. The first two (relying on translations) look like the same sort of press release / advertisement as the English source, so I don't think they can contribute to notability. EddieHugh (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Sari Saraband[edit]

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

It appears that according to folk tales or legends that the first son of Qais Abdur Rashid was named Sarban, founder of the Sarbani. This name I can only find in a self-published book used as a reference.[5] I thought about a redirect but the name here doesn't seem a likely search. I removed the reference to the book and a reference to a Wikipedia article. Doug Weller talk 19:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability is shown in the article itself (notability is not inherited from one's parents), and I don't see any significant relevant RS coverage in my searches. PohranicniStraze (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Qais Abdur Rashid. There is no indication that Sari Saraband was an actual person (nor Qais Abdur Rashid). These appear to be figures in the folklore of Afghanistan. As such, there is as much information needed about Sari Saraband at the Qais Abdur Rashid article. The only non-Wikipedia source given in the present article is from the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal from 1845. Surely better scholarship is available now, 173 year later! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @WikiDan61: I think it should only be a redirect if it's a likely search term, and I've seen no evidence that's the case. And is it "Sari Saraband" or "Sari(Saraband) or Sarban? Incidentally the creator is indefinitely blocked. Doug Weller talk 14:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment @Doug Weller: I take your point. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources adequate to establish either accuracy or notability of claims made on page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ifnord (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Dziewanowski[edit]

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

Article does not meet standards of WP:NOTABILITY or any of the criteria in WP:SOLDIER in particular. Smerus (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Polish wiki better developed. Was a noble, deocrated general,"Dominik+Dziewanowski"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2pJWSqf_eAhVCLVAKHYkjBE0Q6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&q="Dominik%20Dziewanowski"&f=false active in the Napoleonic wars presumed notable per SOLDIER-2 and posssibly 5. Some coverage alao due to his friendship with Chopin.Icewhiz (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*NB being a noble , and having a decoration, do not make the grade according to WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SOLDIER.--Smerus (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The specific nobility and estate here may satiafy NPOL (did not assess). Receiving the Virtuti Militari may pass SOLDIER-1 (the next higher up is a civilian decoration. This is the highest military one). However being a general clearly satisfies SOLDIER-2.Icewhiz (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition of having received one of the highest Polish decorations he was also a general officer, which, according to WP:OUTCOMES (and the not binding but still useful WP:MILNG) generally satisfies notability. Atchom (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Contrary to nom's assertion, it meets WP:SOLDIER#2 as the subject had the rank of general. And it passes GNG as the subject is covered by multiple reliable sources (in further reading, the article had one already, I've copied two more from pl wiki). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, most definitely. More information will be added to the article. Nihil novi (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added information to the article. Doubtless it could be expanded further in future. Dominik Dziewanowski was a remarkable general, was awarded the highest military distinctions of Poland and France, was a noted author and translator, and was the 1824 and 1825 Szafarnia summer-vacation host of the teenage Fryderyk Chopin. How much more could we ask for in the way of notability? Nihil novi (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Xx236 (talk) 10:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a general, clearly does meet the criteria of WP:SOLDIER and did when nominated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Order (upcoming film)[edit]

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

Non-notable future film, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 17:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - principal photography hasn't begun, article should only be in mainspace once that occurs per WP:FILM. Matt14451 (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/WP:NFF. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creator - the sources I used were based on my understanding of WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:RS before I re-acquainted myself with WP:TOOSOON and WP:NFILM. I fully intend on recreating/contributing to this page once there's better sources, but for now, it has to go. I suggest this gets closed as speedy delete.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Easiest way to speedily delete would be to nominate it for speedy deletion as the creator. Matt14451 (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sourced reference that he was indeed a world champion, the fact that he was a survivor of the Titanic wreck is secondary. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Eugene Williams[edit]

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

Non-notable passenger of the Titanic; minimal RS coverage outside of this single event. –dlthewave ☎ 16:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did the nominator actually read the article? He is a World raquets champion, the titanic note is an additional piece of information. How can a sports world champion not be notable?Racingmanager (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soutar was one of the best players ever and was so devastating with his serve they changed the rules in the US to one serve instead of two. Leave this article as it is and do not delete. History needs to be preserved, not covered up or eliminated. Once deleted, it may never re-surface ever again. (Uer: ssader) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssader (talk • contribs) 18:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Yes, a lot of the gbooks sources cover him as a Titanic survivor, but they state he was a notable passenger as a world champion. Iffy★Chat -- 09:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agreed, Passes GNG as a champion Racket player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Passengers of the RMS Titanic. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winnifred Quick[edit]

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

Non-notable passenger of the Titanic; minimal RS coverage outside of this single event. –dlthewave ☎ 16:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does not demonstrate that notability requirements are met. Presence at a notable event is not sufficient to establish notability for an individual.--Rpclod (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOTINHERITED. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like she was the oldest survivor of a particular disaster, was one of the five last survivors of said disaster, and her family tree. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed, and she does not inherit the Titanic's notability just because she had the misfortune to be a passenger on the ship. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the correct venue for this type of bio is a fan site like [6] but she is not notable for Wikipedia purposes. Legacypac (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Passengers of the RMS Titanic since subject is not known for anything outside of surviving the Titanic. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Passengers of the RMS Titanic. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Davies Wilburn[edit]

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

Non-notable passenger of the Titanic; minimal RS coverage outside of this single event. –dlthewave ☎ 16:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does not demonstrate that notability requirements are met. Presence at a notable event is not sufficient to establish notability for an individual.--Rpclod (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like she was the oldest survivor of a particular disaster, was alive at the time of a future discovery related to that disaster, and her family tree. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete strip out the details of the weather, the unremarkable fact she was in her bed that night, that she made it to a lifeboat, and the completely mundane details of the rest of her life and there is nothing. The whole page belongs on User:EEng's Wikipedia:Principle of Some Astonishment Legacypac (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect/merge Yet another NOPAGE. Utterly vacuous. E Eng 06:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Passengers of the RMS Titanic since subject is not known for anything outside of surviving the Titanic. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natashja Rathore[edit]

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

Editor created an article for herself, her father (deleted), and her sister (delete nom). Her claim to notability appears to be the direction of a documentary using footage from a popular Bollywood film. Besides mentions in a couple of articles about the documentary, the subject does not appear to be notable. —Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self-promotion is not appropriate.--Rpclod (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and clear conflict of interest Spiderone 09:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing notability guidelines at WP:FILMMAKER. Ifnord (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Daystar affiliates#Pennsylvania. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WPDN-LD[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, does not meet WP:GNG. Previously deleted by PROD by GB fan with the concern I think this is an example of a small non-notable television station. google news comes up with absolutely zero results, and I cant find anything else in a normal google search except the standard directory listings which do not contribute to notability.. I believe that this concern stands for the recreated article as well. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BROADCAST Legacypac (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline says that notability is assumed for television stations that create their own original content. However, I see no evidence that this station creates original content. I think that we can consider redirecting to the station's owner (and the presumed producer of its content), Daystar (TV network). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Daystar affiliates#Pennsylvania It's a Daystar repeater stick with little history outside of that (until 2010 it repeated TBN). Still doing a ping for article creator @Editguy123849: to fill the article in the next seven days, but I don't expect it to be easy to rescue without more sources. Nate • (chatter) 05:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or re-direct) - none of the notability criteria for broadcast media appears to be met.--Rpclod (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, Not notable on its own.Do not delete, can be a part of owner Co page Alex-h (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, I am sorry about my mistake, I do agree with you. I do have a question: this article meets the same notability as WWBP-LP yet that article was not deleted? Why is that? Editguy123849 (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment It hasn't been nominated for deletion; it probably would meet the same fate if it was put up, to be honest. Nate • (chatter) 01:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing with no prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low overall participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Tsai[edit]

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

Article on an American Photographer. Tagged for sources since 2015. I went looking former more and could find very little other than items like E! Online or the Daily Mail. Rather than going into depth about him, news sources usually mention him as a corollary to the more famous subjects he photographs. GNG and WP:ARTIST fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated. Incidentally, the earliest normally visible version of this article is discreet in comparison with an earlier, subsequently deleted version, from which I quote: He has found inspiration in his multi-cultural background and his travels to Africa, Europe, Mexico, and the United States. While studying at the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, Yu Tsai found his passion for directing, photography and design. Yu Tsai has collaborated with commercial directors in treatment-writing and script development, and draws upon his expertise in the fields of design, color and post-production. This broad-based understanding of film and fine arts contributes to Yu Tsai's singular perspective and signature photographey and directing style. This was by the same special-purpose account that created the current article. -- Hoary (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 14:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see a number of sources in a search - [7][8][9][10][11][12]. Most of them are in Chinese which may be why the nominator missed them, but they are still valid as sources. Passed WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs assesment of the sources Hzh has posted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moothurai[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not meant to be a reference source. Suggest moving poem to Wikisource Rogermx (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be a notable work in the Tamil canon. Andrew D. (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection to an article about the poem with sources - however, Wikipedia is not intended as a publisher of poetry or anything else. Rogermx (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki This belongs on Tamil and English Wikisource. Agree with OP. Andrew has once again missed the point and is arguing about "notability" when the issue is not related to notability. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, agree with above that this poem should be transwikied, but could there also be a redirect to a section that lists these poems at Avvaiyar (and/or eventually breaking out an article called "List of Tamil Poetry)? Coolabahapple (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that should be done too. Ideally we could have an actual encyclopedia article on the poem. However before redirecting this page to the article on the poet, the link(s -- it also redlinks to a different spelling of it!) to this page on the poet article should be removed to prevent circular redirects. (Honestly, I've always found redlinks are better for encouraging article creation than redirects; for one thing, many editathons, including the ongoing WAM, won't recognize contributions that are expansions of redirects.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Wikipedia does not carry guidelines specifically for poetry. But we do not have sources. The Gnome (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP is not an anthology and no references are given to indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability Spiderone 08:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trance Fury[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO, and was deleted via PROD for this reason. Original author, who has an apparent but undeclared conflict of interest based upon username, requested that the page be retrieved via WP:REFUND. Now new SPA (? connection to original author) is removing the maintenance tags despite not truly addressing the issues appropriately. Also - see my talk page; the original author seems to think that Wikipedia can be used for advertising. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage, fails WP:GNG, Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing notability guidelines at WP:MUSICBIO. Ifnord (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cris Urena[edit]

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

WP:NMODEL WP:GNG Being in Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue is not enough to establish notability. No other reliable sources and FMD is not a reliable source for model contracts (it simply lists work like imdb) + vague statements about career. Trillfendi (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing notability requirements at WP:ANYBIO. Ifnord (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus for a specific outcome has occurred herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currae Hospital[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Of the 4 sources, 2 are the company's own website, one is an advert in the Times of India, and the last is about the owner's investments. None refer to Currae in a reliable, verifiable, independent manner. Cabayi (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its a poor article but a cursory consultation with Dr Google producs plenty of independent reporting. It's clearly notable.Rathfelder (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be a notable and large chain of hospitals Spiderone 13:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Times of India is a fairly respectable source. Rathfelder (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on coverage in Times of India[13], Live Mint[14], The Hindu BusinessLine[15]. --DBig Xrayᗙ 09:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. The "Keep" !voters above appear to have a basic misunderstanding of the criteria for notability which is a stricter set of criteria for references to support facts within an article. For example, the Time of India reference is an example of "Dependant coverage" as it is based on a company announcement and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. Similarly the livemint reference is based on an announcement/interview by Patni and fails WP:ORGIND for the same reason. An additional reason is that the topic of this article, Currae Hospital, is only mentioned in passing and the reference also therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Finally, the Hindu Business Line reference fails for the same reasons as above - dependent coverage based on announcement/interview and fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do you imagine content about organizations is going to come from if not on announcements and interview? Rathfelder (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about independent third-party sources? Your comment above shows that you don't understand the criteria for establishing notability of organizations. Perhaps you should read WP:NCORP before commenting further? HighKing⁺⁺ 22:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers and magasines are generally accepted as independent third-party sources. The fact that they may base their coverage on press releases does not alter that. What other independent sources would you like to see? And kindly dont litter your comments with rude remarks. It doesn't help the spirit of collaboration. Rathfelder (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dream of Sleeping[edit]

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

Searches for "Dream of Sleeping" returns little in the way of independent reviews, the same for "Neil Cartmell". The two reviews cited aren't enough to pass criterion 1 of MUSICBIO and the other criteria are not met. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as has two reliable sources reviews already in the article towards WP:GNG, will do a full search later, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Could only find two extra reliable sources: this and this which confirms that the band had BBC national radio play, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Band/project that did very little and received very little coverage. Not suited to an ecyclopedia entry. --Michig (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meager accomplishments, such as being offered as a free download and played (but not in rotation) on a single BBC channel 6 radio show and reviewed in speciality publications that rely on submitted materials for review confirm existence rather than reflect encyclopedic achievement. Bottom line: not enough significant, independent coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing notability guidelines at WP:BAND. It's been almost a month since Atlantic306 said they'd look for something to support WP:GNG - but nothing's happened. Ifnord (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ifnord (talk · contribs) you missed my comment on 30 Nov where I said I could not find much Atlantic306 (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I saw them. Unfortunately, airplay isn't one of the indicators of notability at WP:BAND such as winning a major award or charting on a national music chart. Ifnord (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 December 9 -- RoySmith (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bernice Madigan[edit]

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

Time for another AfD here, the first was a botched mess right from the start and had a bunch of SPAs generating noise. Yet another non-notable supercentenarian, despite the efforts to puff this up the coverage is all routine or, in one instance, a passing mention. Maybe a redirect or a minibio, but certainly not a full article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I wouldn't say the coverage is routine; I'm seeing substantive articles from different media outlets from different years. The subject otherwise wouldn't meet WP:BIO beyond meeting the GNG, but that's not required. Ravenswing 20:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I could maybe see a minibio, but most of the articles about her basically are local/statewide saying "Her Heart is still beating". As an aside the stuff about her political views is ridiculously undue weight (and not attributed to boot), and after that... we're left with maybe two paragraphs. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I expect we'll just have to disagree. Ravenswing 07:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just making a note to reaffirm my delete vote. The sources described below are big names, but again tell us almost nothing of the subject other than that she lived and had political views. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at most a minibio. Legacypac (talk) 11:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is almost non-existent. She lived. She avoided the Reaper longer then most. She died. Pure case of WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on three different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of American supercentenarians#100 oldest American people ever – The only coverage this person received was because of her reaching an advanced age. Her age is notable, not her life or deeds. Hence her placement among the 100 oldest American people ever is sufficient for recording notable facts in this encyclopedia. — JFG ^talk 09:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is notable WP:GNG with articles in the Huffpost [16] and Independent [17], which I don't believe are sourced in the article. She has appeared on ABC news, featured in AARP Magazine, filmed for the Center for aging at the University of Chicago, participated in several scientific studies on aging [18]. She is notable for her age, which is another way of saying she is notable for her lifespan and reliable sources cover basic aspects of her lifespan. routine does not apply here because the reliable sources are about her and there is nothing routine about living to 115.--I am One of Many (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As well as the articles found by I am One of Many, I find an article in National Geographic[19], in the Herald&Review from Illinois, about her being the oldest person on Twitter[20], in the Detroit Free Press, which says that she was also on Facebook[21], and in Metro US[22]. This is not routine coverage - she meets WP:SIGCOV; and it runs over several years, so WP:SUSTAINED. The article could certainly be improved to include these sources and the information in them, but that is not a reason for deletion WP:NEXIST RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! The Herald&Review says she was the oldest person on Twitter, and the Detroit Free Press says that she was also on Facebook! That's real notability! E Eng 01:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect to an appropriate list. Perhaps the best NOPAGE case ever. E Eng 01:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources found by RebeccaGreen and I am One of Many provide sustained substantial coverage of Bernice Madigan and establish that she passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where at WP:N does it say joining facebook or twitter makes you notable. Legacypac (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline does not say that joining Facebook or Twitter makes someone notable. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline does say that "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is required for notability. The sources found by RebeccaGreen and I am One of Many provide significant coverage of and are reliable and independent of the subject.

Cunard (talk) 09:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RS coverage alone does not mandate an individual article. Per WP:NOPAGE, Ms. Madigan's few biographical facts can be merged into List of American supercentenarians, which already covers a few similar cases. — JFG ^talk 21:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One more vote to keep. Bernice Madigan has reached the very rare age of 115, how is that non-notable when you consider the current human life expectancy? Deleting her article would be inconsistent, Bernice Madigan had plenty of coverage in the media, this cannot be discarded --Garlicolive (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC) — Garlicolive (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We usually suggest newcomers spend time on article improvement to learn our policies rather than jumping directly into AfD discussions. Legacypac (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per JFG. She is not independently notable, and the coverage of her is mostly routine. But not a keep by any means. SportingFlyer talk 22:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and NBIO. Her life was "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Any NOPAGE redirect should bear in mind WP:PAGELENGTH on the target. schetm (talk) 09:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me? The only thing the article tells us about her life is: Madigan did not take any medicine nor a daily vitamin. Neither do I, thank God. How is that "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"? — JFG ^talk 23:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One's extreme longevity, as documented in RS, passes the test. schetm (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. If the only noteworthy attribute of this person is her age, her presence among the top 100 oldest Americans is sufficient. — JFG ^talk 00:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the second part of my argument - we need to keep the WP:PAGELENGTH of the target in mind. If we're gonna be nopaging a bunch of these bios, the target page will exceed the recommended article length. Plus, when you get a page full of minibios, they can be nuked without going to AfD, which bypasses any consensus made here to redirect. I have a serious problem with that. What we need are some specific notability guidelines for longevity articles, and sooner, rather than later, preferably before another article is brought to AfD. But, in this case, bearing all that in mind, I believe it is preferable to keep the stand alone article for the time being. schetm (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do need notability guidelines for this subject matter. Feel free to help craft them at WT:LONGEVITY, where they are being discussed. — JFG ^talk 07:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAGELENGTH shouldn't matter since her name, age and birth/death places and dates are already on the list. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the outcome is to merge and create a minibio, as was proposed by the nom, we absolutely do need to keep WP:PAGELENGTH in mind. At any rate, my concern about such minibios being nuked, overturning consensus at AfD, which has happened within the past month, has not been addressed. I therefore reaffirm my keep *vote. schetm (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some Delete voters seem to forget that some supercentenarians receive no or very little coverage before their death, and some receive a lot, therefore some meet WP:GNG and some do not. I would suggest that a notability guideline for supercentenarians is quite simple. For those whose age qualifies them for inclusion on a list, but who receive little or no significant coverage before their death, being in the list is sufficient. However, if, for whatever reasons, people found them remarkable enough to write about them in reliable, independent sources, or to include them in documentaries, etc, over a period of time and with some details, then Wikipedia should reflect that significant coverage with individual articles. I did not think that Wikipedia was concerned with judging the merits of the reasons for significant coverage of individuals. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Further discussion regarding the article's content can continue on its talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concept drift[edit]

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

Unsourced, a gazillion external links, reads like an essay not an encyclopedia article. Needs TNT. Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 06:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per SK#3 as the page has plenty of sources. For example, the first inline citation is to Basseville and Nikiforov 1993. Andrew D. (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources and links suggest notability and verifiability. It seems to need clean-up of the external links in the text etc., but AfD is not for clean-up. Cnilep (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an extraordinarily low-quality article, but there are references (even inline ones! just not using <ref></ref> syntax). [23] is a higher-quality introduction. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cut down, removing sections "Examples", "Datasets" and "Meetings", moving the list of reviews at the end onto the talk page for someone to use in creating something better-sourced. I think the rest could stay after some reference rescue. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lynne Ferrario[edit]

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

Local board member. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources to show she meets WP:GNG, and she certainly doesn't meet either WP:ACADEMIC or WP:NPOLITICIAN. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Serving on a smalltown school board is not an article-clinching notability claim in and of itself, but the sourcing is nowhere close to getting her over WP:GNG — three of the eight footnotes are primary sources that do not count as support for notability at all, and the five that are real media are all from the same local newspaper. This represents a range and depth and volume of coverage that every school board trustee everywhere could quite routinely be expected to show, so it's not enough to nationalize her notability as somehow more deserving of an article than most other school board trustees in North America. The rule here is not that as long as a person can show two or more media hits they're automatically exempted from actually having to pass our subject-specific inclusion rules for their occupation — if you're shooting for "doesn't pass any SNGs but is notable anyway just because media coverage exists", then actually getting there takes a lot more media coverage than has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, and a school board is not an automatic notability pass by any means. SportingFlyer talk 17:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for failing notability guidelines at WP:ACADEMIC and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Ifnord (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 14:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of alleged sightings of giant sharks[edit]

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

This article was created solely as a WP:content fork for badly sourced info that was removed from the main megalodon article for being insufficient. Later it was moved to the current title in an attempt to save it. The badly sourced info has no place on Wikipedia, other than perhaps as a single sentence in the Megalodon page or shark page, saying "there have been a couple of sightings of giant sharks", but that's about it. FunkMonk (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing can be salvaged from here. Also the title makes it sound like it’s supposed to be a rehash of sea monster User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 14:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments on talk page. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs | uploads) 15:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — This is an unnecessary content fork. Merging is out of the question; the megalodon article, one of the best I have had the pleasure of reading, covers all the essentials of the species.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator was initially referring to List of alleged megalodon sightings, for which I used sources, a number of which were not been forked from megalodon, but after he said in Talk:List of alleged sightings of giant sharks that "giant predatory sharks" was better, I renamed "List of alleged megalodon sightings" to "List of alleged sightings of giant sharks", and that was what I meant when I said 'closed' was that the initial thing about 'megalodon' was closed, not that others cannot say more there, I rectified that error. Leo1pard (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC); edited 04:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't increase the quality of the sources or made this less of a content fork, though. FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are you referring to, apart from those that had been elsewhere? Leo1pard (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Does not seem to be a worthwhile article, as per nom. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a poorly sourced content fork and per FunkMonk--Kev min § 15:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Megalodon#In_popular_culture - the modern concept of the cryptid existed before the 21st century. There's not a separate article on Giant shark (cryptid). 17:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete its a content fork/poor topic. Legacypac (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Poorly sourced fringe, without anything significant in need of merging. --tronvillain (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list of things that may or may not have happened? Ifnord (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:F8D2:1EE7:484D:EC37 (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator, who neglected to close this. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McBride (fighter)[edit]

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

Withdraw from nominator

~~Subject is a non-notable MMA fighter. Fails WP:NMMA.~~ PRehse (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missed the Bellator fight.PRehse (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:NMMA. Besides his two UFC losses, he had a victory in 2014 at Bellator 129. At that time Bellator was still a top tier promotion. Papaursa (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smash Champs[edit]

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

Video game of unclear notability. There have been reviews but that's par for the course for new games. Search of Google brings up 77 unique results, mostly places to download it. Prod contested. ... discospinster _talk 20:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of RS coverage, including Engadget, GameZebo, Pocket Gamer, and 148apps. JOE BRO 64 21:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article is written almost like an advertisement. Vorbee (talk) 08:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article just about meets GNG with the sources above Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad/unnecessary relist in my opinion (number of votes being 2 vs 2 is not equal to consensus and the arguments of the nominator AND the other delete !voter have been refuted with sources shown and the tone of the article is not WP:PROMO anymore ). Passes WP:GNG per having coverage in multiple reliable sources that are also listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources.

Pocket Gamer https://www.pocketgamer.com/articles/062334/smash-champs/

148Apps (which is a situational one but is applicable here) http://www.148apps.com/reviews/smash-champs-review/

Engadget https://www.engadget.com/2014/11/07/smash-champs-is-stunning-unique-and-action-packed/

While not listed, Windows Central as well since there is no consensus either way https://www.windowscentral.com/smash-champs-windows-phone-game-review

Not really the most notable mobile game for sure, especially compared to Subway Surfers which is the other game from the same developer, but enough to pass the guidelines. There have been reviews but that's par for the course for new games is ignoring what WP:GNG is. Not all the new games get reviews, especially mobile ones because there is too many of them nowadays. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article seems to pass WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2009 FC Flora Tallinn season[edit]

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

Flora played in the Estonian Meistriliiga which isn't a fully pro league meaning this fails WP:SEASONS. The sources are primary making this fail WP:GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both I don't know if some of the content can be merged into the main article of FC Flora as it's not that big. However as it appears they both don't have enough to pass WP:GNG and as Doug as pointed out the articles fail WP:NSEASONS. Govvy (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 20:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:SEASONS is not an exclusionary standard. No comment on WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 08:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In 2010 Flora were champions, you cannot do more than that! On the other hand we have season articles for fourth level clubs in England, so deleting this would be just another instance of systemic bias and discrimination. Linhart (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it had prose it may have been worth merging or even keeping, but at the moment it is just a stat dump Abcmaxx (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MTV Europe Music Award. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 10:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Europe Music Award for Best Australia & New Zealand Act[edit]

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

No claim of significance, plus it’s lacing updates Sheldybett (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simply hasn't been awarded since 2015, but honestly, a merge of the defunct MTV Europe Music Awards categories into a List of defunct MTV Europe Music Awards categories should be pursued; there's simply no reason a series of tables needs around 20 separate articles in any way besides the usual oddball network/awards show fandom that's inflicted these type of articles for years. Nate • (chatter) 03:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article was never completed, no notability. Even though it relies on primary sources, it doesn't provide as much information as simply visiting the primary source. PabloZ 00:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PabloZ (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. Sandstein 10:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inspired (company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY with no independent reliable sources. The article was deprodded by 2601:182:CD03:6034:11D8:FB09:199D:B0C5, who has only added unreliable Instagram sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if only Instagram was a reliable source, but it's not so there are no usable sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Salil Gewali#Great Minds on India. Sandstein 14:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great Minds on India[edit]

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

This article talks a big game about its importance (and that of those who have spoken favorably of it) but ultimately its coverage is entirely pulled from what appear to be non-reliable sources. The Shillong Times may potentially be an RS, but its coverage is very minimal [24]. Does not meet WP:GNG. The fact that Penguin Books published its second edition is a positive sign of notability, but ultimately it doesn't satisfy the guideline at WP:NBOOK. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yeah, this reads very promotional and grandiose, whereas the actual coverage of the book from google turns up scant RSes. --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 03:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per some of the notable sources and also new sources added. Although the article is promotional and needs trimming of the promo materials. - ToT89 (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redirect to Salil Gewali#Great Minds on India, fails NBOOK and appears to be a case of undisclosed paid editing. The creator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NWA World Midget's Championship. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PWR World Mini's Championship[edit]

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

Non-notable championship from a non-notable organization, created by someone with a non-disclosed WP:COI [25] Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 19:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 19:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - Guess you didnt read the original post from the original article of how it was switched from the NWA to PWR. Per the original article for the NWA World Midget's Championship between 2005 and 2015 by other authors. As for the WP:COI referenced there is none. Just a fan of luch libre and independent wretling- ldeffinbaugh (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2018 (EST)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I know nothing of PWR but it seems this title used to be involved in the NWA, held by the most notable midget wrestlers of the day, and PWR maintained control of the title after seceding from the alliance. Under this scenario it's entirely possible for the title to be more notable than the promotion it's currently contested in. Sourcing looks good enough to pass WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck keep vote, Return content to NWA World Midget's Championship and make this a redirect. This article was originally at NWA World Midget's Championship, the creator just made that a redirect and pasted the same material under this new name. Since there is no new content and the article actually cuts off after PWR took over, the content should be moved back to the NWA name. If new content can be added from the PWR years then a move request to the PWR name would be the correct venue for this. The creator needs to be more familiar with the creation process before making more articles.LM2000 (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Joe (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin University Rifle Club[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. All provided sources are affiliated with the subject, I was not able to find anything in online RS while doing a WP:BEFORE. The article's lone claim to notability is that it is supposedly Dublin University's oldest club, but no source is provided (previously, a citation to a revision of the Dublin University wikipedia page was provided, but that's not RS. That article cited [26], which doesn't appear to back up the claim based on a Google book search through its contents (and even if it did, that probably wouldn't demonstrate general notability for the subject in the absence of other reliable sources). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A better snippet result is obtained from the ref linked above by putting the search term in quotes. That puts a foundation date on the club, but does not, at least in that snippet, directly verify it is "the oldest". There is a lot of coverage in University Times [27][28][29]. They are a highly respected student newspaper, a lot more acceptable as a RS than the average student rag, but probably not independent enough for our purposes. There is a book source cited in the article, A History of Dublin University Rifle Club. That would be enough to get this past GNG if it comes from a respectable publisher. Unfortunately, I can't find any trace of its existence, except for this which names a different author and later publication date. Possibly there are two books, but I suspect both of them are self-published by the club. I'm inclined to give this one the benefit of the doubt, but I can't make a solid argument for GNG. SpinningSpark 10:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Trinity College, Dublin student organisations, the parent article, as an alternative to deletion. Lacks significant coverage by every measure and has nothing with a secondary source to merge. There is no evidence that "A History of Dublin University Rifle Club" was a book, and I'd sooner assume that it is a digital doc written by an officer of the club. Might be able to use the brief mention in A History of Trinity College, Dublin, 1892-1945 OCLC 292280. And of course the university's student paper cannot be used to demonstrate the independent notability of another student org. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 04:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Technology Awards[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:ORGSIG and WP:ORGCRIT. No independent reliable coverage apart from the organisation's own web presence, and mentions on the web pages of various winning organisations. There are mentions on Yahoo [30], but as Yahoo is the sponsor for the event, it's not independent coverage. Mostly edited by a series of SPAs, seemingly as promotion for the event. Richard3120 (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 10:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draper (producer)[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill; no significant coverage; existing sources are unreliable and are mostly interviews and profiles. Jalen D. Folf (talk • contribs) 17:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: I see the improvements to the article since this discussion opened, but no comments on this discussion. Remember that passing mentions of the music producer are not enough to satisfy WP:GNG; it has to be significant coverage specifically. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources are insignificant on-line sites: interviews, press releases, self-downloads and the like. The only decent one is Billboard, but it's just routine promotional content rather than significant. Perhaps if there were a greater number of Billboard-type sources this run-of-the-mill type coverage could add up to something, but it doesn't clear the bar right now. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 10:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With Dead Hands Rising[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources that is independent of the subject. The best is http://www.metalinjection.net/show-recap/dead-hands-rising-farewell otherwise, I found a lot of WP:ROUTINE coverage or blog entries. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The band has an entry in Garry Sharpe-Young's book New Wave of American Heavy Metal, and I also found an Alternative Press review, but not much else. The tendency for metal bands to get more coverage in print sources than online reliable sources may mean there's more out there. --Michig (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As near as I can tell, New Wave of American Heavy Metal is published by its author's own vanity press, Zonda Books. I don't think it should be considered anymore significant than, say, a blog, regardless of how authoritative its contents may be. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 10:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saak Victor Ovsepian[edit]

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

Self-created article, primary sources, as adjunct professor does not meet WP:NACADEMIC Melcous (talk) 08:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citability in GScholar is rather minimal, and there does not appear to be anything else in the record to indicate passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Obvious socks discounted. Sandstein 10:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Priyambada[edit]

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

promotional article on model. Actress with no major roles, and I think consensus is that a title of Mrs. Global India is not necessarily or even usually notable . The references are the usual PR associated with such activities. DGG ( talk ) 07:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KeepShringhringshring (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC) — Shringhringshring (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per nom along with Draft:Priya Priyambada just sent to MfD. Legacypac (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I was about to decline an identical page in draft space, but this BLP is in both article space and draft space, a common way of trying to game the system. Does not satisfy acting notability. If this article is deleted, the draft should also be deleted. If this article is kept, the draft can become a redirect. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Priya Priyambada. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability Spiderone 20:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. CoolSkittle (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because scholarly article and Ongoing Coverage is equivalent to Notablity , she seems to have enough coverage to get verified and an wiki article Jaydenchandel (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC) — Jaydenchandel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep per WP:GNG, per Sources which do indicate notability within the platform it is posted on, For me keeping the article Seems reasonable Soundfrea (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC) — Soundfrea (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Keep Satisfies WP:GNG news portals like Zee News , Kathmandu tribune and amarujala posts represent significant Coverage about the subject in reliable sources Wikiblooded (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC) — Wikiblooded (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Notable enough to have an Article , have coverage also so its a keep from me Meridazen (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC) — Meridazen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Bush (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Only two entries--hatnote on the main article. Why does this exist? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Disambiguation not required (WP:2DABS). Also delete top hatnote at Robin Bush. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary for only two people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:F8D2:1EE7:484D:EC37 (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Airspace Action on Smoking and Health. Sandstein 10:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Errol Povah[edit]

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

A few editors (SoWhy and 24.80.104.82) have attempted to redirect the article to Airspace Action on Smoking and Health on concerns that the individual is not independently notable. After a quick search, I tend to agree as I did not see significant coverage in third party publications (the best I could find is this and this which do not even have Povah's name in the headline) with most mentions being in passing, in letters to the editor, or in first party or related sources. Given that the redirect has been reverted each time, I am seeking external thoughts. Mifter (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the subject shows up with minor mentions in reliable sources, there isn't the depth of coverage needed to demonstrate independent notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Airspace Action on Smoking and Health as previously done per WP:ATD-R. Apparently, the creator does not understand that WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT is a valid edit when notability is a concern. I agree with Mifter that there is no significant coverage of this individual to be found to establish their notability per WP:BIO, WP:GNG or WP:BASIC (I can find a couple of RS mentions in passing but not nearly enough. Regards So Why 15:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Airspace Action on Smoking and Health. I originally stumbled upon this article when searching for a name that was in the paper, expecting a personal blog or a linkedin profile, I was surprised that he had a Wikipedia article as, I've lived in this city for two decades where he is active, and even here he wouldn't really qualify as "Notable". I've seen a lot of protests over the years but I've never seen a "grim reaper"... I do admit mea culpa, I accidentally tagged the article for "speedy deletion" as I wasn't sure how to use the templates properly. I much prefer this current process (thank you Admin editors for correcting this. I don't have an account because I only ever very casually edit pages). His name does get mentioned in the paper in passing here and there like Mifter said, but that's about all the mentions I ever hear. I was surprised and then the tone of the article was a bit, off (at the very least Edit the article for neutrality), so that's why I added the templates. I started a discussion in the Talk page where the I addressed the article issues, as of yet I haven't seen a response. The redirect seems appropriate, but considering the redirected article has very little itself on Errol Povah, I'm not sure why there needs to be a primary article at all. 24.80.104.82 (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Airspace Action on Smoking and Health, then protect the redirect from further disruptive editing. Searches show they fail WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation of a redirect afterward — but delete the article first and then create a redirect if desired, because we have no need to retain the edit history behind the redirect. None of this is "inherently" notable for the purposes of establishing that he's eligible for a Wikipedia article — but the sourcing consists of one glancing namecheck of his existence in a news article about something else and a letter to the editor which he wrote, which is nowhere close to enough sourcing to get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems that Kinder Morgan regards Povah as significant. 201.111.10.207 (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2011–12 UEFA Europa League first qualifying round. AfD is for discussion of articles that the nominator believes should not exist on the encyclopedia, and such was not the case here. If normal talk page discussion doesn't work, please consider a Request for Comment next time. Discussion of the details of the merger can be worked out on the talk page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 UEFA Europa League first qualifying round[edit]

(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)

(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)

Unnecessary and no consensus to split into this kind of articles at Talk:2011–12 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round and Talk:2012–13 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round. I suggest we should merge/unsplit content into 2011–12 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round per WP:ATD. But due to avoid edit warring with creator, so I create AfD page to discuss this issue and a stronger consensus. Hhkohh (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was split following a discussion in 2012 out of concern that the main article was too long. There was no objection, but only two people participated so that's a rather weak consensus. Still, to say there was no consensus is wrong. Smartyllama (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the page pre-split is about 318k in WP:SIZE. This would seem a good reason to have these smaller stand-alone articles. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smartyllama, this is not the place to review those discussions, but why not you support to split other season qualifying articles in Talk:2018–19 UEFA Europa League discussion? And also you can visit Talk:2012–13 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round discussion. That discussion is opposed to spliting. Hhkohh (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You’re the one who nominated it for deletion, not me. If this is not the place to review the discussion, why did you nominate it? I have no opinion as long as the content exists somewhere, socill stay out of this. Smartyllama (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Smartyllama, I did not say we should delete those content. Again, I said we should move those content to 2011–12 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round. And that discussion is 5 years ago, so there is nothing to review. Hhkohh (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure what we're discussing at this point so I'm just going to back away from here. Smartyllama (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pages are over 100kB and should be kept split as a result. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIZE refers to 100kB of readable prose as a point at which a split should be considered, not 100kB overall size.T v x1 18:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note Notified editors who joined the related section in Talk:2018–19 UEFA Europa League, Talk:2011–12 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round and Talk:2012–13 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round Hhkohh (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Revert split. Splitting these articles was not warranted by the guidelines.T v x1 18:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments It's a lot of information scattered around, I understand the way the article has been split up but if football box collapsible was used it might be okay all on one article. AfD is for deletion, this should of been taken to Merge consensus. Govvy (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back together. Giant Snowman 15:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Completely technically, there's no way this should be deleted, so chalk me up for a keep. As to a merge, the way the setup exists is really stupid: 2011–12_UEFA_Europa_League_qualifying_phase_and_play-off_round is not really a usable article. I would propose either merging the coefficient table back to the main page and deleting the qualifying phase and playoff round, keeping the individual articles for the rounds, or merging back to the qualifying phase and playoff round. I'm probably more in favor of the latter, but the status quo isn't really an option. SportingFlyer talk 08:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:FORK Abcmaxx (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kohl McCormick Early Childhood Teaching Awards[edit]

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

There is no significant coverage of the awards themselves. This also sounds like an advertisement. SL93 (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Award fails WP:NAWARD. No significant independent sources. Ajf773 (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NAWARD and WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Fruits Basket characters#Kyo Sohma. Sandstein 10:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kyo Sohma[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG and is primarily just unsourced fan WP:OR. I found no information in a WP:BEFORE search I did that he is notable outside of the manga/anime universe he inhabits. His entry on the List of Fruits Basket characters is sufficient for Wikipedia, as he is not notable on his own. Most Fruits Basket character articles (including this one), were created by the same long inactive fan-editor in 2005 and were eliminated about 10 years ago for lack of notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Fruits Basket characters#Akito Sohma. Sandstein 10:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akito Sohma[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG and is primarily just unsourced fan WP:OR. I found no information in a WP:BEFORE search I did that she is notable outside of the manga/anime universe she inhabits. According to the author, she isn't even one of the main characters in the series. Her entry on the List of Fruits Basket characters is sufficient for Wikipedia, as she is not notable on her own. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zac Nichols[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The page states that this person is a creative director but not a single reference on the page verifies that statement. Many of the hyperlinks are dead, and one claims this person is a bouncer, not a creative director. The working links go to blog posts. It was previously PROD tagged but perhaps some suitable sources were produced. A Google search turns up his personal website, but no reliable, secondary sources to prove notability.--Citrivescence (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. --Citrivescence (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. --Citrivescence (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What i could find was less than 4 passing mentions one of which was from PageSix, it fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. PlotHelpful (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minimal reliable source coverage, not nearly enough to demonstrate notability under WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Downie[edit]

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

A biography that is basically all WP:SYNTH and reads like it was set up solely to disparage the subject. However, that aside, I do not see the subject even meeting notability as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Seems his claim of notability was working at an agency that came under scrutiny for someone else they employed. CNMall41 (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as proposed. There is a lot of SYNTH going on to create an appearance of notability, not reflected in the passing mentions in the sources. This is a relatively low level military person (highest rank being colonel), who wrote one fairly thin academic book, of limited impact. Doesn't meet WP:NPROF; doesn't meet WP:MILPEOPLE. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 01:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WPGA2345. This is basically a WP:COATRACK article, and there's no evidence that Mr Downie meets WP:BIO. WP:ONEEVENT also applies. Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources do not hold up notability. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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