Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 December	11 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 keep. Whether this article should be redirected/merged elsewhere is an issue that can be discussed on the talk page. Randykitty (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tabiti[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

The article was restored by Tabiti and Dashte Qom, socks of user:Tirgil34, by banned user Falconfly. Article is largely a copy of the essay "On the Scythian Pantheon" by amateur writer Carlos Albuquerque. The chief source, Argimpasa – Scythian goddess, patroness of shamans: a comparison of historical, archaeological, linguistic and ethnographic data by Pan-Turkic pseudo-scholar Zaur Hasanov is unreliable. 1l2l3k (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support WP:Deny --Tarage (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep easily passes WP:GNG per [1][2][3]. I am rather inclined to suggest procedural close because no policy based reasoning has been provided and there was clear failure of WP:BEFORE. The months later block of Falconfly is irrelevant because he was an independent editor. I am not going to count the false accuations of sock puppetry made by the nominator because User:Tabiti was investigated and he was never found to be a sock of Tirgil34 or anyone else.[4] Why you mentioned Dashte Qom when he never edited the page? I would urge 1l2l3k to retract the false accusations because they constitute personal attacks and I would also urge Tarage to reconsider their vote. Orientls (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this edit summary, or this, made by Krakkos, also a personal attack, according to you? WP:Deny exists for a reason. Also, it's good to read the history of the article, which I do, when I patrol. I do not exclude that GNG may exist. But the mere fact that this person, who is such a nuisance to wiki created this article makes me want to have a community discussion. I don't care if I am on the wrong side, as long as I involve some discussion around keep or delete an article from a banned user. --1l2l3k (talk) 03:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@1l2l3k: You are responsible for every accusation you make. There is no sensible justification in making false accusations only because other editor has also made them. This is not any "article from a banned user". Opinion of Krakkos is not more official than that of SPI clerk and checkuser.[5] The article creator (Tabiti) is not a sock of anyone but an editor with a clean block log. G5 would be declined even if he was a sock. There is no policy which suggests us that article should be deleted if it was edited by an editor (Falconfly) who got banned way after editing the article. WP:DENY is completely irrelevant because article was not created by a sock nor Falconfly was evading his existing block. You should retract the false accusations. Orientls (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, and don't ping me again. --Tarage (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Besides the arguments laid forth by Orientls, A) the argument put forth is just plain not correct (compare this the cited article), B) most information is actually lifted by sources cited within the article, such as Esther Jacobson's The Deer Goddess of Ancient Siberia: A Study in the Ecology of Belief. Case closed, this is pure spite by two paranoid dunderheads someone who has a history of spiteful behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amangazo (talk • contribs) 12:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC) — Amangazo (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Falconfly (talk · contribs). [reply]
Redirect: The article was created by Tabiti, who was clearly a Tirgil sock.[6][7] The reason Tabiti has never been blocked is that he was stale, not because any investigation proven his innocence.[8] Normally, an article created by a sock qualifies for deletion as per WP:G5. I would however prefer to keep the edit history in order to preserve evidence on Tirgil. The current version of the article was created by Falconfly, who has been banned for his problematic editing. As the nominator states, his version is largely based on the essay "On the Scythian Pantheon" by amateur writer Carlos Albuquerque, and the chief source is Argimpasa – Scythian goddess, patroness of shamans: a comparison of historical, archaeological, linguistic and ethnographic data by the dubious Azeri author Zaur Hasanov. Until someone can write a quality article on this subject, it serves better as a redirect to Scythian religion. Note that Amangazo, who voted above, is clearly a sock of Falconfly. Krakkos (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Krakkos (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: since you have visited this page, can you consider taking action against these range of false accusations of sock puppetry? The creator of the article was not a sock because an SPI clerk and a CU didn't agreed when Krakkos opened SPI against the creator[9] and Krakkos has been warned by Bbb23 to stop falsely accusing others of being a sock of Tigril34,[10][11] yet he is continuing this disruption by calling the creator a sock of Tirgil34. Orientls (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the creator of this article was abusing multiple accounts is irrelevant. It's three years later, G5 does not apply here. Please discuss the merits of the article without referring to who did what in the distant past. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support The issue that is relevant here is the lack of reliable sources. Currently all of the sources reference are either not available to english language readers or are obscure authors that do not appear to reflect mainstream thinking on the issue. The article also seems to be, in parts, directly quoting the cited text without appropriate reference or quotation marks. Back of the napkin here, but it looks like 60-70% of the article is directly lifted from the sources. That makes this less of an encyclopedic article and more of a gathering of quotes. Squatch347 (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Squatch347: You should really familiarize yourself with WP:DISCUSSAFD and WP:RS. Article is mostly sourced to sources published by Oxford University Press, Brill Publishers, both are high quality WP:RS. Sources don't necessarily have to be written in English per WP:NOENG. There are gazillions reliable sources in English language that have significantly covered "Tabiti", few of which you can find in my initial comment here. Read WP:N and WP:GNG to know what I am exactly talking about. Orientls (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, but Indo-European Poetry and Myth (Oxford University Press) is used for a minor throw away point at the end and it isn't clear at all if the source actually says what is claimed (given a quick perusal and the original editors' penchant for doing exactly that). Its only other use is for the Etymology which is somewhat supports on page 267, but that paragraph would need to be editted to fit that actual material in the source.

The same can be said for the last Brill published source, Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb, it's addition is solely for a throw away point about other religions, not about Tabiti. It's use in the Etymology section is even less clear, though I'll need some more time to find where this might have been referenced in it (It's why I always encouraged Falconfly to properly cite his references, to no avail). If you have a page number, that would help a lot.

The first Brill source is the same story. It does cover the Hittite relationship, but that isn't the thrust of this article. It doesn't seem to support the claim in the lede.

So that leaves us with two extremely questionable sources, a possibly unsourced lede, and the largest individual section with no references.

Thanks for the additional references, those could help greatly. The first source definitely would be useful, but I don't think it can stand on its own McFarland is an activist publisher and qualifies as WP:FRINGE or at least is openly and actively trying to not qualify as mainstream. The second source is spot on and is published by Brill, which is great. What sections of the article do you propose it covers? It definitely doesn't seem to cover everything. The third source doesn't seem to be referencing any specific content. Can you specify exactly what in that text supports what in the article?

Squatch347 (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McFarland is an academic publisher and AfD is not about discussing content issues. Read WP:ATA and WP:ATD. This discussion should only focus whether the subject (Tabiti) meets WP:N or not. Orientls (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that in the wiki article you linked it describes McFarland's academic publishing as in Baseball, Information Ethics, and Maritime review. IE not anything related to this topic. Thus this is an independently published book, not a scholarly work. What's more, we have to consider more than just if it came from a legitimate publisher. It is important that the article represent mainstream ideas on the subject at hand, not WP:FRINGE. I'm not sure we have that here, certainly we can't be confident that we do without additional mainstream sources. Currently, we have two questionable sources and one legitimate publisher who (according to our wiki page) specializes in niche subjects.

As for the articles deletion, I'll note that the only relevant thrust of your argument runs afoul of WP:MUSTBESOURCES. If there are sources, then properly cite them and flush out the article. As it stands now this is just a stub with the single most relevant piece being a completely uncited section about Herodotus.

Side Note: I've added a citation needed reference to Kurgan figures first and second sentences. The third sentence is referenced in the linked articles, but neither of them reference anything like what the first sentence is describing that I can find. I'm open if someone can show it to me, but if not, I recommend we strike the section.

Squatch347 (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McFarland is a reliable academic publisher, no matter what they publish. The article no where says it is academic only for those three fields. You are making no attempts to understand what is a WP:RS or what is the purpose of WP:AFD and now you are trying to misrepresent my comments which makes your own case worse. My comments don't "runs afoul of WP:MUSTBESOURCES", because I have provided enough reliable sources in my initial comment which easily proves that the subject is passing WP:GNG. Where as you are using WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument since you haven't even refuted the fact that vast amount of reliable sources significantly covers the subject. Orientls (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, if you have the sources then write the article. I'm not saying that it needs to be deleted for notability, I'm saying it needs to be deleted because it has no content from reputable sources. If there is reputable content (and I believe there is) then let's re-write the article to reflect that content. But we can't keep the current fringe info under the justification that there exists mainstream info somewhere. Squatch347 (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not fringe only because you disagree. Orientls (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep: As Orientals stated, the sources match up. As ivanvector noticed, it doesn't matter who madeb the article. Lets all act like professionals. Lady Anta, 15:34, 29 November 2018 UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady Aanta (talk • contribs) — Lady Aanta (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Falconfly (talk · contribs).

Comment it appears the only remotely-contemporaneous reference is Herodotus. Many of the other references are misrepresented in the article; "The Deer Goddess of Ancient Siberia: A Study in the Ecology of Belief" doesn't claim that she was a solar deer goddess and "Indo-European Poetry and Myth" doesn't claim she was the original fire goddess among Indo-Iranians. As a result I'm removing the entire "interpretations" section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, article with its references now reflects this (thanks to above editors' efforts}, numerous books refer/mention her, including (note: not all may be deemed "scholarly":)) The Routledge Dictionary of Gods and Goddesses, Devils and Demons, Goddesses for Every Day: Exploring the Wisdom and Power of the Divine Feminine Around the World, The Goddess Guide: Exploring the Attributes and Correspondences of the Divine Feminine, The Encyclopædia Britannica (1895 on), The Golden Deer of Eurasia: Scythian and Sarmatian Treasures from the Russian Steppes : the State Hermitage, Saint Petersburg, and the Archaeological Museum, Ufa. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the subject isn't notable. The question is about the article itself. It is, in its current form, essentially a copy/paste from a fringe author and doesn't represent mainstream views. If we remove uncited materials and fringe authors there is essentially nothing left in the article aside from Tabiti's name. No doubt someone could write a valid article about the Scythian goddess, but this isn't it. Squatch347 (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's where you don't understand the purpose of AfD when yourself say that you "don't think anyone is arguing that the subject isn't notable". The purpose of bringing the article to AfD is all about arguing whether the subject is notable or not. Orientls (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend a quick perusal of WP:DEL-REASON, an article can be deleted for a whole host of reasons that aren't just notability. Look, the bottom line is that absent the questionable sources and citations needed this is a blank page. Squatch347 (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you see in WP:DEL-REASON is almost completely handled by WP:SPEEDY deletions. AfD serves no purpose other than discussing notability of the subject. Orientls (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if you strip the bloat from an obscure source, the subject is left with very little, and much of this is "we assume", it is theorized", etc... There's nothing here, use the name as a search term to get to Scythian religion. MarkAQuinn (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, am i looking at the same article? there are 4 references presently cited in the article, (let alone the sources i have listed above), not, "an [one] obscure source", this afd reminds me of WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are four references, correct. Two are questionable Fringe (as noted by several earlier). Two are reputable sources, but only cover information unrelated to the article. IE X is similar to... and the citation only covers the latter info, nothing about how it is similar or Tabiti directly. If you look at the article and remove the citation needed sections and remove the non-Tabiti related comparisons the article is, essentially a blank page. Squatch347 (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

so now it is 2 fringes... if you believe that is the case, and the other 2 sources dont directly address the subject be bold and remove them, after all, "Article content does not determine notability" (of course, another editor can also add the sources i provided above:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG. There appear to be more reliable sources which could be added, and possibly more information, but the article as it now stands provides basic info. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the information in Tabiti is exactly the same as information on Tabiti in the Scythian religion article, except for the beginning that states she is queen of the gods and equated by Herodotus with Hestia. References in Tabiti are already in Scythian religion. Aurornisxui (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree per RebeccaGreen and IMO, Clearly meets WP:GNG. 65.18.124.149 (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, NOTE to closing admin: There appears to be valid reasoning for merging (#1 and #2). Although there is consensus to keep a source provided on the article states, "In the Scythian tongue, Hestia is called Tabiti". Hestia already is included on Wikipedia and the content of this article should be appropriate covered under an etymology and other appropriate section of that article or Scythian religion (per above) to negate duplicate coverage. Claims of Wikipedia:Deny are unfounded and a fork or duplicate coverage, no matter the sources or "keep !votes, does not give valid grounds for keeping. If kept I am sure this will be a perennial issue at AFD. Otr500 (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources provided above. Rest of the arguments are simply WP:ATADD. desmay (talk) 01:32, 17 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Storybook Activities for Improving Language[edit]

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

A research study in a single county, with no references other than the primary reference. That book doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK; it is a doctoral thesis and I find no references about the author. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article was written in 2005, when Wikipedia's standards were less clearly defined. I think it would have made an excellent blog post, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me as an encyclopedia article. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for failing WP:BOOK. Ifnord (talk) 02:57, 17 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Varinder Kumar Sharma[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken to locate said sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Please do not hesitate to contact me should sources be located during the course of this discussion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do find some coverage [12], [13], [14], which does state that he did his exam in Punjabi - but also that he was the first physically disabled person to come top of the civil service exams, and highlights that the civil service was not good at providing opportunities for disabled people. I don't know why that isn't mentioned in the article. There are other articles about his actions in his roles as deputy commissioner, etc, eg [15], but as coverage of a DC's actions, that is not specifically about him. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing distinctive for notability. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 13 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 (G11: blatant spam) by Athaenara

Digitome[edit]

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

Product of the Medable company that has not been shown to be notable. Citations in the article generally verify facts not related to the actual product (such as facts about why the product was created). External links appear to be exclusively press releases by the Medable company. Note stated COI of article's author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – My G11 nomination was removed by a connected contributor. I wasn't able to get past the over-the-top promotionalism to get to a decent consideration of notability. If there's an argument to be made for notability, it's lost in the babble. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Animal (restaurant)[edit]

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

Only one review does not make a restaurant Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the reasoning used by the nominator of this article. One review does not make this LA restaurant notable. Given its relatively recent opening, it's hard to see why this restaurant would merit an article of its own. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Restaurants are regularly reviewed in newspapers, that they are reviewed do not make them notable, especially when such establishments are frequently short-lived. Needs sources that cover the restaurant in some depth outside of reviews. Fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 09:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reviews and coverage. desmay (talk) 01:33, 17 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Koyu Rankin[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a child actor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NACTOR: the references here are two glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that aren't about him and a YouTube clip of him being wished a happy birthday, not reliable source coverage about him. As always, the notability test for an actor is not just having had roles per se, such that as long as roles are listed the references can be just any weaksauce garbage you can find to technically verify them -- the notability test for an actor is receiving enough media coverage about him and his roles to clear WP:GNG, but none of the sources here live up to that standard. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 5 credits on IMDB, of which 2 are short films, 1 is a TV series with no episodes (?), 1 is a voice part and the last one is a one-off appearance in a TV series. No other indication of notability. Far too soon to warrant an article. PK T(alk) 16:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 19:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclision criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 17 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Student Competitions AB[edit]

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

No independent references and none found other than directory entries such as [16]; due to the generic name and the possibility of Swedish references it's possible that references do exist that I haven't found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject of this article does not pass WP:GNG. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If the sources of this article are in Swedish, that is okay. Sources do not have to be in English for the topic to be notable. Carajou (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you even read the article? There are no sources in Swedish and only self-published sources in English. Sjö (talk) 07:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything that shows that they are even close to meeting WP:GNG. Sjö (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, who didn't say that Swedish sources weren't ok - they said that they couldn't find any. No one else has either. Ifnord (talk) 03:03, 17 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

67 Days of Smiles[edit]

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

A promotional article about a promotional stunt. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. TheMesquito^buzz 21:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for stand alone article per WP:Not News; trivial. Kierzek (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per @Power~enwiki and @Kierzek Azkord (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. TheMesquito^buzz 15:12, 13 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Parkhill[edit]

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

No evidence subject meets WP:GNG. Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable BLP. SportingFlyer talk 02:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in WP:RS. Lorstaking (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a political consultant and/or chief of staff to other officeholders is not an automatic inclusion freebie. It can get a person into Wikipedia if they can be referenced over WP:GNG as having received reliable source coverage about them in media for it (e.g. the Chief of Staff to the president will almost certainly qualify for an article, while the chief of staff to a congressperson probably won't) — but it does not guarantee an article to every person with that job title who has ever existed. But two of the three footnotes here are the (deadlinked) primary source websites of his clients, and the third is IMDb, which means that zero of them constitute notability-supporting coverage. Bearcat (talk) 00:23, 14 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. "Keep" !votes unanimous, satisfies WP:SK#1 per this edit by the nominator. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Eenfeldt[edit]

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

Andreas Eenfeldt is a promoter of a low-carb high-fat diet, an idea not back by mainstream nutrition or scientific research. He has written some books promoting this fad diet but there is no evidence of notability, so this fails WP:GNG. There is nothing on pubmed about Andreas Eenfeldt, nor on JSTOR, or on Google Books, so reliable sources are lacking. What is needed are reliable secondary sources but it is hard to locate any. Mainstream science has basically ignored his ideas so it is not possible to write a biography about this person with various reviews from journals. I do not want to be accused of being biased - I am all for including fringe content on Wikipedia but not without reliable coverage. His books have not been reviewed in any academic or science journals, nor any reliable website for that matter. It is difficult to find any neutral websites that discuss his ideas. The ones that do are all low-carb diet websites that are heavily biased, thus primary sources. The minor newspaper coverage that can be found on Google News is not reliable and reads like tabloid advertisement (Daily Mail etc). Because of the lack of reliable independent secondary sources, the article should be deleted.

Keep I am withdrawing my original vote to delete this article, based on new references found by Macrofour. I am satisfied that papers such as this are reliable [17], I have striked my original delete nomination comment. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On a policy basis, I believe the nomination is correct and justified, so I will say Delete. There may be a greater issue here in that the work of this individual, as well as Malcom Kendrick and Uffe Ravnskov (among others) simply needs to be better covered by reliable sources, but that is not something that we have the power to change on our own. Without reliable secondary sources, we simply can't keep the article. Strikerforce^Talk 20:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Page should not be deleted. Whether or not you agree with his science, Andreas Eenfeldt is a controversial figure whose impact on Swedish society has been the subject of an independent sociological paper the reference and commentrary for which I have added. His impact on Swedish society and the low carb movement cannot be denied from a sociological perspective. Any concerns over the reader being misinformed about the controversial nature of Eenfeldt's advice should be allayed by the addition of this information. The paper is a highly credible academic secondary source that justifies the retention of this entry on sociological (not scientific) grounds. Macrofour (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that is a good reliable reference. However one source IMO is not enough to establish an entire article on Eenfeldt. If others are found then I will change my vote, but so far it is very difficult to find anything. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have added two others. I think the problem here is that people have focussed mainly on the scientific validity of Eenfeldt's work & so have missed these other references. That is not where his notability from secondary sources comes from. Instead it comes from the related social sciences field. The validity of the science behind Eenfeldt's claims will come, if at all, through his work in the Dietary Science Foundation which I have also added. Feel free to make edits to my additions. Wikipedia is a collaborative platform after all. Macrofour (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was searching for scientific sources that evaluate his work in medical journals, admittedly this is lacking so based on policy I was thinking he was not notable. I did not realise he was covered in various papers on sociology. This is very unexpected but quite interesting actually! I have withdrawn my deletion vote. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We cannot just erase people from Wikipedia because of a difference in viewpoints, that's absurd.~ Mellis (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , but the extent of the negative material is disproportionate. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 16 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 American Juniors (group). Randykitty (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle White[edit]

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

Cannot find any significant, in-depth coverage from reliable sources that establishes notability. --Darth Mike^(talk) 20:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25], Meets NMUSIC and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Looking back a few of the sources are poor, The billboard ones are great but I don't feel these enough to justify, Meh redirect. –Davey2010^Talk 20:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at the most redirect to American Juniors (group). Sources provided by the above "Keep" vote are trivial mentions or name checks in routine listings/catalogues of TV show casts and all are in context to the show American Juniors. The sole exception is a profile in a local, free weekly touting the subject's entry in a film festival, and even then the article is really about a business partnership than about this individual. Overall, lacks meeting significant GNG or WP:MUSIC criteria. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:ATD-R, ShelbyMarion's appraisal of the sources provided (and the one I added to the article in 2011) is accurate, and there have been years for additional sources to appear. No argument is advanced above for NMUSIC--not even an identification of which part of NMUSIC is claimed to have been met. --joe decker ^talk 16:24, 11 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Thompson Sisters[edit]

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

Cannot find any significant, in-depth coverage from reliable sources that establishes notability. Two sisters who were on a couple of reality shows and had a couple of bit parts. --Darth Mike^(talk) 20:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failed every check at WP:MUSICBIO. — Wylie pedia @ 01:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 19:28, 16 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) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Huff[edit]

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

Cannot find independent sources to verify notability. Natureium (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C1 with an h-index of 38 on the Web of Science and 40 on Google Scholar, which is more widely inclusive. XOR'easter (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 as explained in the vote above. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although this is very borderline. While the citation count is good, these were all group papers, with several authors. If the count was simply on items they hade authored solely, this would be a slam dunk keep.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:34, 15 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. The "delete" !votes have the stronger argument. With no linked articles, we simply cannot have a disambiguation page. Randykitty (talk) 12:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dzubenko[edit]

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

Disambig article for a surname, except for we don't have a single article about any of these people. It just lists 5 redlinked names, which makes me question both the notability of mentioning these people on wikipedia and the necessity for this article in general Openlydialectic (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Rename to Dziubenko. This correct surname! See also Talk:Dziubenko. And see also uk:Дзюбенко in Ukrainian Wikipedia. --Микола Василечко (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NOTVOTE. Openlydialectic (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read the arguments. Your actions are destructive! --Микола Василечко (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A surname found both in Russia and Ukraine with interwiki links to corresponding entries in both Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias, although, as of this writing, the Russian and Ukrainian interwiki links flow to the redirect, Dziubenko, which is the English transliteration of both the Russian and the Ukrainian form (Дзюбенко). Neither the Russian nor the Ukrainian Wikipedia have an entry for the form Дзубенко (Dzubenko). Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1) Disambiguation articles on Wikipedia exist to help people searching (in this case) for a specific surname distinguish between several people. In this case, there's nothing to distinguish between, the articles about these people do not exist, so I don't see why this article article should stay either.
2) Dziubenko is not an English transliteration of the surname Дзюбенко - Dzyubenko is - per WP:Romanization_of_Russian. I don't know where that other user got his spelling from, he refuses to provide sources.
3) BTW the name of the article should indeed probably be changed to Dzyubenko per WP:Commonname: "Dzyubenko" - "Dzyubenko"&sourceid=opera 66,100 results, "Dziubenko" - 12,400 results
4) Also considering your long history of voting together with Микола Василечко to push Ukrainization of surnames/locality names in articles that often lack attention from mainstream editors ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) makes me question whether your keep vote was submitted because of factual evidence, or because you're trying to push a little agenda here. Farewell. Openlydialectic (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename back to Dziubenko (possible option Dzyubenko). On the genealogical site MyHeritage there are 5,585 records for Dziubenko/Dzyubenko, and only 127 for Dzubenko. Dont think it was enough evidence for renaming to Dzubenko. Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional !vote: Whatever the name is meant to be, please find at least two, preferably more, existing articles for people with that name and link them in the fashionable non-red style which is all the rage with people who don't want their pages deleted. Without multiple linked articles we simply don't need a disambiguation page as there is nothing to disambiguate.

IF anybody can do that by the time this AfD closes THEN

Please count me as a KEEP.

ELSE

Please count me as a DELETE.

ENDIF

Of course, if there really are two different names then we can have disambiguation pages for both provided that both actually have multiple articles in need of disambiguation, so I don't understand why people are fighting over this one page. They could "see also" to each-other if the two names are similar enough to be confused. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Openlydialectic: 1) There are a number of disambiguation pages which consist solely of WP:DABMENTIONs. There is nothing wrong with such pages, which are preferable to redlinks. The five people listed at Dzubenko are notable even if no one has yet created articles for them in English Wikipedia. Anyone typing Dzubenko, Dziubenko or Dzyubenko would be either confronted with redlinks for all three or would reach this dab page which would have, as its main header, one of these three forms, while the other two would be redirects to this dab page. Since this dab page already contains interwiki links to both the Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias, the user would be able to research the individuals in one or both of those Wikipedias. However, if this dab page is deleted and Dzubenko, Dziubenko and Dzyubenko all become redlinks, with existence of (and access to) those Russian and Ukrainian dab pages remaining hidden to users of English Wikipedia, no one would be helped and potential users would be losers.
2) Dziubenko is the English transliteration of the Ukrainian surname, while Dzyubenko is the English transliteration of the Russian surname which is written Дзюбенко in both Ukrainian and Russian - per WP:Romanization_of_Ukrainian.
3) Since, among the five people listed at the Dzubenko dab page, four are Ukrainian and one is Russian, the main title header should be the Ukrainian form, Dziubenko. If, subsequently, the number of additional Russian entries exceeds the number of Ukrainian entries, the header can be moved to Dzyubenko. Basically, Dziubenko and Dzyubenko are different English transliterations of the same Russian/Ukrainian surname, while the current header, Dzubenko is a slightly different name — no one among the five people listed is named "Dzubenko", unless the transliteration is conflated with the other two.
4) Longtime users know well that Wikipedia encourages us to WP:Assume good faith and strongly advises as to WP:No personal attacks, especially in this edit, which questioned my integrity, even if you subsequently revised it to question whether my vote represented agenda-pushing. As you may know, I rarely if ever edit articles related to Russia, Ukraine or Eastern Europe in general and, while I participate in nearly all WP:Requested moves and WP:Articles for deletion discussions regarding those topics, my participation encompasses all WP:RM and WP:AfD topics, most of which are completely unrelated to Eastern Europe. The only time my path has intersected that of Микола Василечко is in the above-mentioned move requests, with no agenda on my part, other than the conviction that Wikipedia should render to Russians what is Russian and render to Ukrainians what is Ukrainian. Continuing on this path, if one were to comb through your user contributions, would one find that you have been pushing an agenda? Until later. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NNAME: "If at least two articles matching the surname or given name of the subject of a name article do not exist, then the surname or given name list article would not be notable and should not be created." -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 15 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 clear that WP:CRIME along with WP:GNG has been met. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Francis Reuel Tolkien[edit]

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

The article has been basically copied from Tolkien_family. WP:COATRACK & WP:POVFORK The subject of the article is not notable in their own right. Additional material has been added which is speculative and not backed up by the sources cited. WP:NRVE The contentious content in the article appears to be based on scandal or gossip. WP:NOTSCANDAL The user who created this article was invited to gain consensus for new material here Talk:Tolkien_family but has not done so. The creator's edit history strongly suggests there a close personal interest and non-neutral point of view. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tolkien_family#Father_John_Tolkien_child_sexual_abuse_allegations WP:NPOV Tonyinman (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Father Tolkien has, sadly, become a notable person in his own right, with articles about him on the BBC, Guardian, Times, Telegraph, the Tablet, Church Times and all the Birmingham papers. Rathfelder (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tonyinman (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tonyinman (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tonyinman (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tonyinman (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete If notable, only for one very negative ~~BLP~~ event. This is not rogue's gallery or the crime blotter. Do not see this as adequate claim to notability. The negative ~~BLP~~ conduct is alleged. Any mention at all is salacious and tabloidesque. Does not meet any inclusion criterion you might care to name.16:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
further-- Read andendorse delete rationale of nominator. The person who readdded the contentious material has asked for page protection to keep it there and was declined by me. I followed the AfD link here after reviewing and reverting.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suspect that if he were not the eldest son of the author, there would be less interest in this particular priest's problems, but we have a conflagration of streams and the subject's notability is clear and the article meets WP:GNG as it is currently written. If content must be removed from the original, so be it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is reported today that the church's legal advisers conceded in 2003 that the allegations would stand up in court.^[1]
Keep. Tolkien is dead, has been dead for a while, and will probably remain dead for the forseeable future, so WP:BLP is not in play. His father is *very* famous and important, and for very famous and important people, we tend to lower the bar a little bit I think. This is more in deference to the fact that people want to know more lots of details (such as what's the deal with their children etc.) for very famous and important people, more than can fit in their article, than it is to independent notability of the offspring per se. We can see that there is a Category:J. R. R. Tolkien which has ten subcategories and 51 other pages, so if there's any reasonable basis for including stuff like his minor works, his mentors, his lovers, his children, and so forth, we should consider that people are going to be interested in that.

And there is a reasonable basis: John Francis Reuel Tolkien meets the WP:BIO standard for a stand-alone article, easily. (It's only because he's JRR Tolkein's son than for anything he personally accomplished, but for whatever reason there it is: meets WP:BIO.

So and since the article already exists, why destroy it? I'm not inclined to be of the mind "Well, we have this info, but let's not not share it with readers" as a rule, regardless of how boring and trivial I find the material to be. Herostratus (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is neutral and well-referenced. BLP does not apply. So far as WP:CRIME is concerned, the issue meets the standard of "historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role"; and "or has otherwise been considered noteworthy" is satisfied in large part because he is his father's son, as Herostratus notes, above. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Crime states "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." Firstly, there was no conviction and secondly, there is already a page at [tolkien_family], so why the need for a new page. Why not add content to the existing page subject to consensus existing talk page? Tonyinman (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unfortunately, meets WP:GNG and WP:NCRIME. Catrìona (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Crime states "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." Firstly, there was no conviction and secondly, there is already a page at [tolkien_family], so why the need for a new page. Why not add content to the existing page subject to consensus existing talk page? Tonyinman (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)*Comment. Can I, for the record, object in the strongest possible terms to the nominator's obnoxious "The creator's edit history strongly suggests there a close personal interest and non-neutral point of view", which I've addressed at further length at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tolkien_family#Father_John_Tolkien_child_sexual_abuse_allegations . --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the edits related to cases involving the same lawyer and this was a reasonable query. Tonyinman (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the sum total of Rathfelder's edits on one of the three articles diff - correcting a typo. And here's the sum total of their edits to a second of the three diff - 603 char. And yes, Rathfelder is entirely responsible for the Richard Scorer article. And for that, you would traduce Rathfelder in persuit of your deletion. Delete your account. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote an article about Scorer, and while working on it I read other related articles, some of which needed attention, and I came across other topics which merited articles. I also did a lot of work on Category:Child sexual abuse, which was a bit of a mess. None of that is evidence of any conflict of interest. And for what it is worth, I am very sorry Tolkien's name has been dragged through the mud. Rathfelder (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I feel the same way as everyone who wants to keep this article that it definitely shouldn't be deleted. Also like I have stated before that too much deletion for no good reason is in no one's best interest. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NCRIME. Good sourcing. BabbaQ (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Crime states "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." Firstly, there was no conviction and secondly, there is already a page at [tolkien_family], so why the need for a new page. Why not add content to the existing page subject to consensus existing talk page? Tonyinman (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't known only in connection with a criminal event. Rathfelder (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I explained in my 'keep' why WP:CRIME was met. Tonyinman's not having it, but this AfD is by now snowball keep, so it makes little difference. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tonyinman's latest edits to the article makes me wonder if he has skin in this game. Rathfelder (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covered in a Tolkien context - e.g [26] (and several others). Also very widely covered in a crime context over several years on a national level - [27][28][29][30][31]. Lack of conviction moot given he's not a BLP. WP:NCRIME and WP:GNG clearly met. Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 16 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 transpired herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ringsted terror plot[edit]

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

Not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia per WP:NOTNEWS. Hitro talk 03:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:RAPID --Shrike (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has been nominated after 27 days of the creation. 4 weeks are literally more than "few days". WP:RAPID does not apply here. No reason for lasting notability can be found. Only project that can be considered for retainer is Wikinews. Hitro talk 08:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the source from two days ago that tells about the consequences of the incident [32] --Shrike (talk) 09:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In addition meet WP:DIVERSE as multiple sources around the world that discuss the incident. --Shrike (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, every arrest is not notable. This "terror plot" resulted in exactly 0 deaths and 0 injured. (And the "source from two days ago" isn't really related to this case: ASMLA have stated that they were behind this terrorst attack, so obviously any ASMLA meeting will meet with very strong police presence,) Huldra (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shrike (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shrike (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very easy keep actually - though the article is a mess, and should probably be rename to Iranian assassination plot of ASMLA leadership in Denmark (or something shorter). This a foiled Iranian spying/covert-op that caused an international incident (Denmark recalled its ambassador, called for more sanctions - Guardian). Coverage is continuing through the end of November - WSJ, Asharq Al-Awsat. Icewhiz (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep per INDEPTH, reported coverage by major international news outlets, including the BBC: [33] & New York Times. Terrible article, disheveled, disorganized article as it snow stands, however, sources exist from which a good article can be written.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep per INDEPTH, and WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,Per Huldra, It is be considered that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.Also GNG doesn't support the subject, if it did support the subject, it wouldnot be a reason.The article which is based on just 2 RS, is better to delete or move to other relevant articles.Saff V. (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments like Saff's are not helpful. It is obvious that Saff never even glanced at the page, he could not have,asserted that there are "just 2 RS" if he had.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Governments, the press and the world in general tend to regard the act of a government sending an assassination squad to operate clandestinely and MURDER several people in a foreign country as a pretty big deal. Even when, as here, the assassins sent by Iran are foiled before they carry out their mission.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your last comments seems to be original research and we shouldn't make a decision based on it.In addition I reviewed article and find afew independent valied sources that don't support the notability.As Wikipedia:Notability (events) nominated,It is recommended that editors start a section about the event within an existing article on a related topic if possible, which may later be split into its own article if the coverage suggests that the event is independently notable.Saff V. (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SIGCOV If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.. Since the topic has received in-depth coverage, the guideline is quite clear, editors should presume the topic is notable at this stage. NOTNEWS applies to . For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. This is not routine reporting on division three football. Europol is very likely to cover the plot in its annual TE SAT report on terrorism in Europe. AadaamS (talk) 06:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Terror plot in Europe covered in major press; enough for a keep. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:RAPID & WP:NOTNEWS. No apparent lasting significance or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — A few voters on the side of keep argue there is in-depth coverage; however, these news stories are typical of the news cycle. Another editor argues simply rapid, even though that is a double-edged sword and past its expiration in this case. A few even admit the article is in a poor state which is a huge deal for BLPs. The simple facts of the matter are that we cannot claim there is sustained coverage with the expected news reports as our “evidence” or sufficient coverage to satisfy our notability guidelines on events, all while somehow somehow negating our core policy of NOTNEWS. A lasting impact cannot possibly be seen without a crystal ball so notability has not been established on several counts—and cannot be until we move beyond the news cycle crimes are afforded.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per WP:SIGCOV the incident has received coverage in international media. AadaamS (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the incident being commented by the prime minister of Denmark, it has reached the highest political levels in a country. When an ambassador has been recalled, it has also had international repercussions. AadaamS (talk) 07:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let's don't lower the threshold. Enough time is passed and given the poor coverage of the event after the incident, I think we can safely remove this item per WP:NOTNEWS. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree, an incident with international ramifications, reported internationally - The Independent's article [34] (already included as a source) gives an idea of the ongoing diplomatic considerations. If it is kept, though, I would also suggest renaming the article to something like Alleged Iranian assassination plot of ASMLA leadership in Denmark, as suggested above. If it is not thought to warrant an individual article, then it should be merged into an article like Alleged Iranian terror and assassination plots in Europe, as that Independent article ties it to several other planned attacks. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have received a message on my Talk page from TheGracefulSlick, urging me to review WP:NOTNEWS and change my vote. I do not appreciate this - it appears to be an attempt to keep the lobbying out of sight. I do not believe that WP:NOTNEWS applies: this incident and its repercussions are not routine. Also, I suggested in my vote that an alternative would be to merge this incident into an article with larger scope. I would expect any closer to review all keep, delete or other arguments and suggestions, and make an objective decision. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this was a significant Iranian plot.WaterwaysGuy (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for WP:LASTING - this quite clearly has some rather serious diplomatic implications - Europe refrains from harsh response against Iran over terror plots for fear of emboldening Trump, Independent, 21 November, EU open to Iran sanctions after foiled France, Denmark plots: diplomats, Reuters, 19 November 2018. Continuing - EU ministers poised to impose sanctions over Ukraine poll, FT, 7 December - "Diplomats say the EU ministers are also likely to discuss other limited possible sanctions on Iran over an alleged foiled assassination plot in Denmark in September aimed at opponents of the regime in Tehran. The proposed sanctions against people allegedly involved in the plot come amid a bigger discussion on whether to increase EU pressure on Iran over its missile programme and its role in conflicts elsewhere in the Middle East.. Countries getting caught in state sanctioned assassination attempts in other countries are generally notable events with last diplomatic repercussions (as we see here).Icewhiz (talk) 07:16, 13 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Ragan[edit]

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

Ineligible for speedy and PROD because this was kept at AfD in the glory days of 2006 when everything was made up and the references didn't matter.

Anyway. I was not able to find any references to justify keeping this article under WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. The awards cited are not notable enough to grant a presumption of notability. All sources located that mention him are name-drops during discussion of other topics, not focusing on Ragan. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how this individual passes GNG in my BEFORE. Seems to be mainly sourced to the subject's webpage. Icewhiz (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and I'm not finding any reliable, secondary, independent sources. Citrivescence (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inadequate secondary coverage. The fact this article exists is a show of the results of unrestrained creationist policies that plagued Wikipedia a decade ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 17 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 deleted as G11, A7. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No/Hugs[edit]

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

@Beinganiceperson and Hikoulini: Queried speedy delete for "not notable" and "advertizing". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Anthony Appleyard: were you trying to remove the other two deletion templates with your deletion nomination? Richard3120 (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beinganiceperson and Hikoulini: User:Beinganiceperson speedy-delete-tagged it. I deleted it. User:Hikoulini complained in my user talk page. I undeleted it and AfD'ed it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

User:Beinganiceperson Anthony Appleyard I have reformatted and added a lot of national as well as international press to back up every fact on the wikipedia page for No/Hugs as well as re-formatted it based on other similar band pages.If you could take a look and kindly give me some more feedback I'd really appreciate it. 2601:1C2:100:4B22:E016:6104:22A7:40A0 (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hikoulini (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Hikoulini Anthony Appleyard I have seen no improvement to third-party sources or national press on the article. Perhaps, you are misled on what reliable "National" and "international" sources mean. I still see sourcing back to bands website and Facebook pages, very local international press, and at best some small regional press but not in depth enough about said subject, or proving notability at all, and unfortunately they aren't reliable sources that display the bands notability or keep worth on Wikipedia. 2601:1C2:100:4B22:E016:6104:22A7:40A0 (talk) 03:05, 15 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reece McGinley[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFooty - no appearances in a fully professional league. Highest level of youth cap is at under 19. No significant general notability. I believe this may be the original author's first attempt at a page creation, so possibly draftify for a future article? Gricehead (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL having appeared in a competitive fixture between two teams from fully professional leagues, namely an EFL Trophy match between Rotherham and Bradford in November 2017. See Soccerbase. Kosack (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per the above, meets WP:NFOOTY. 21.colinthompson (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by proposer - no objection to a SNOW keep for this (assuming withdrawing it isn't an option) - it never occurred to me that an EFL Trophy appearance would be enough to pass NFooty. Sorry for wasting your time. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 12:21, 11 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DWBE[edit]

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

This station is not exist. Myrabert01 (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the 2018 list of FM stations by the NTC (commons:File:FM radio stations in the Philippines (October 2018).pdf), DWBE is assigned to a station in Palawan and there are no FM stations located in Bataan. It is also not found in the list of stations in Radyo Natin's website. --Bluemask (talk) 09:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of the sources present in the article does provide technical verification that this station existed in the past, even if it doesn't still exist today — but that source is just a routine directory listing, not substantive coverage. It also fails to verify whether the station actually originated any of its own programming, as required by WP:NMEDIA, rather than just serving as a rebroadcaster of programming that originated elsewhere. Radio stations have to meet all four of four criteria to actually qualify for Wikipedia articles: a proper broadcast license, an actual established broadcast history as opposed to just being a paper license that never actually got on the air, originating at least some of their own programming rather than serving purely as relays for programming produced elsewhere, and reliable sourcing which verifies that all three of those things are actually true. This article does not properly demonstrate passage of all of those criteria, however. Also worth noting that it was created by an editor who was blocked, just four days later, as a sockpuppet of another editor with a very problematic editing history around Philippine radio stations. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 12 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Musical Theatre Guild Productions[edit]

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

This article is unencyclopedic and non-notable, lacks context and references. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Musical Theatre Guild doesn't even have an article itself (fails WP:GNG) plus Wikipedia is not a directory of repertoire. Ajf773 (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 08:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is unsourced and has little or no significance. ‑‑V.S.(C)(T) 14:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no secondary sources cited Spiderone 10:23, 16 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stowaways[edit]

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

Procedural nomination on behalf on an IP. Their rationale is:

Fails to meet any of the criteria of WP:BAND. No independently notable musician, no major award won, no evidence any of their songs charted. A quick google search reveals results for a lot of bands named `Stowaways`, but the only page which seems to refer to this particular band is the Wikipedia article... Also, given that there is a disambiguation page, the page should (if not deleted) at the very least be moved to a more suitable title, since it clearly isn`t the primary topic... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reyk _YO! 09:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, article does not even claim to meet WP:BAND. Ifnord (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not satisfy WP:GNG and searches reveal nothing significant to warrant an article. DeniedClub ^{❯❯❯ talk?} 05:54, 17 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. Michig (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yomi Kasali[edit]

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

I am not convinced that this is more than puffery, with the references either PR or just notices. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ouch. I honestly don't have any COI on this but I have something to point out.

Although I believe there are universal guidelines for us here, we still have some cases where the subjects are just notable to their geographical area. Like the article I created on Karen Gibson who is just notable in the UK until appearing at the Royal Wedding. In some cases, like Fuji House of Commotion, the subject is very very notable but has a very weak calibration with references we could get because it was popular before Nigerian media blended with the internet. That has been the case here, he is a notable Nigerian sphere and the article could be improved. There are still Nigerians in red like Sam Adeyemi, Funke Adejumo whom are of public note but may face this good faith flag off. Fellow Nigerian editors who also care about keeping the Wikipedia standard could help drop a comment.

Danidamiobi (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find plenty of coverage online of this reverend - it seems that he has made some controversial statements (eg 'Yorubas, Igbos, Hausas monumentally corrupt, Nigerian church built with looted funds – Rev.Yomi Kasali'[35], plus he's condemned other ministers, and comedians who make jokes about religion, etc). The article could certainly be expanded, but I believe he meets WP:GNG, and probably WP:NBISHOP, or whatever the relevant abbreviation is for his denomination. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaGreen It will be nice to Note that the aforementioned Pastor is not a Bishop and therefore shouldn't be referred as such. I don't think for any reason he should be considered using the criterion's on WP:NBISHOP, because if he was a Bishop, then he's automatically notable.

Is Nutin (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Reply I did not say he was a bishop; I am aware that his denomination does not have bishops. What I meant was that within the Apostolic churches of Nigeria, it seems that he may have a similar status. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* RebeccaGreen Yes, you are right. That was why i proposed a strong keep.

Is Nutin (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. DGG Would you like withdrawing your nomination? Per Danidamiobi he clearly passes WP:GNG and he obviously does same per some of the criterion on WP:ANYBIO.

Is Nutin (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it highly promotional. He even gives the schedule of his talks. DGG ( talk ) 15:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did some minor copy editing to reduce the promotional tone. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly looks like nothing more than a résumé, with links to opinion columns and press releases. Flowery prose like "and they are blessed with 2 children" shows a clear bias for the subject. Zaathras (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought AfD discussion was meant to be about notability, the existence of sources and verifiability, not the quality of the article. As anyone can edit the article, content and expressions inappropriate to an encyclopaedic entry can be removed or revised; they are not reasons to delete an article if the subject of the article is notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- If this were just about being the pastor of a church, I would have little doubt about deleting it, but he is denominational secretary for the national part of a major international denomination. I agree he is not a bishop, but denominational leaders have a similar notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is plenty of PR, but he is notable, see e.g. [36] and [37]. wumbolo ^^^ 21:05, 16 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Labonte[edit]

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

Canadian author and photographer. I can't find decent RS on him. He has published a couple of books on various topics; I found two reviews of variable quality in total. GNG, WP:ARTIST and WP:AUTHOR fail. (Note that he writes under the pen name "Paul 107".)ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sign of notability. Sources provided (Youtube,...) not establish or suggest notability. SaraLiX5 (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that articles about him in the Montreal Gazette dating to before he was hired to write a column for the Gazette are INDEPENDENT sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I took a swing at sourcing it. He and his book did get covered in the Montreal Gazette, I added some of the stories sot the article. The Gazette ran a profile when the book was published . But it's local, and even if it wasn't, I just didn't find enough to support notability under WP:CREATIVE, or WP:ANYBIO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:13, 14 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, snowball close with the additional valid entries. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Morris (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Dab for two items: one is the main page anyway and the other is a redirect. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TWODABS page with a clear primary topic. bd2412 T 03:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak, reluctant keep. I dug up a minor third entry. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both the secondary uses can be handled in one hatnote - done already. PamD 14:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that further valid entries have been added. PamD 23:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:19, 10 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 Winthrop University. Randykitty (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winthrop University Police Department[edit]

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

This page clearly does not meet WP:GNG, as far as I can tell this police deparment is hardly mentioned in local press. Furthermore, the two references included are primary sources not secondary. This article could also be merged with Winthrop University. Philipnelson99 (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Winthrop University, per nom. Ifnord (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Agreed, merge per nom. Not notable enough for a stand-alone page. DeniedClub ^{❯❯❯ talk?} 05:59, 17 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Airstrikes in Iraq and Syria[edit]

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

Article was de-PRODed by its author,[38] citing improvements they made to it. But that doesn't negate the fact that this is a WP:CFORK of multiple articles covering the same topic, including American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–present), American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War and International military intervention against ISIL. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the article is notable for an independent article WP:N. Also in recent times, articles like Airwars, Drone wars, ISIS, ISIL, etc. are discussed greatly in news and gaining momentum each day. M A A Z T A L K 17:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Ma'az (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be simply a list of airstrikes that have taken place during campaigns covered on other pages. FOARP (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to the original articles. Currently, its a mostly empty list, but the content should be kept somewhere --DannyS712 (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear WP:CFORK per nom. Don't find enough content for merging back. Rzvas (talk) 08:17, 17 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. Michig (talk) 07:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Freeglader[edit]

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

A before search didn't bring up any reviews on the book. Also, there is currently no citation in the article. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Other similiar AFD:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added two reviews to help show it passes WP:NBOOK. Additionally I know it was reviewed in at least two other RS, VOYA (12/01/05) and Horn Book (10/01/06) but do not have access to those reviews so I can't add them directly but further evidence of sources to satisify the SNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, well I can't verify your claims. Both are behind paywalls that I can't even access with my University logins. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that is not a ground for rejecting them per WP:PAYWALL. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, are you allowed to share the contents for verification? I'm not familiar how such things work --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant for an AfD? If you're able to verify that the review exists, it doesn't matter what the review says. The fact that it's reviewed by a reliable source is what makes it notable. Natureium (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natureium, well WP:BKCRIT says "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[5]"

So I can't tell if they are trivial or not. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a journal that discusses books have an article titled the name of a book and then only mention it trivially? Natureium (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natureium, well it might not meet this ""Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is reliable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source."

So in that case the triviality doesn't mean passing mentions. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a professional in the field of children's literature, it is my thinking that Booklist, School Library Journal, Horn Book, and VOYA are some of the journals that provide reviews from reliable sources that help to establish notability under WP:NBOOK for children's books. I understand your opinion might vary but all of those journals, as can be established from their websites, have editorial controls, with editors who are themselves sometimes notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word, and work hard to screen their reviewers (which for some publications are actually employees) in the way that we would expect reliable sources to do. They are not in anyway personal website, blogs, etc. I do not have experience with Looking Glass (which you mentioned on your talk page), but my initial review of their About Us would suggest to me that they are not a reliable source and would not count their reviews towards helping establish notability under NBOOK. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 10 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. No opposition to deletion in three weeks. Michig (talk) 07:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus B. Nash[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC:

Various source searches for independent, significant coverage in reliable sources are only providing brief passing mentions, name checks, quotations and quotations of the subject acting as a spokesperson (the latter two of which are primary in nature, and do not establish notability).
Said brief passing mentions primarily consist of routine coverage of the subject's duties, providing almost no actual biographical coverage or significant coverage.
The article is almost entirely reliant upon primary sources. Seven of the eight sources are primary, and while the Deseret Morning News 2008 Church Almanac presumably provides some coverage, multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as consensus is that LDS leaders have to pass WP:GNG or one of the SNGs, and this subject does not. The article's sources are not independent (Liahona, Church News, lds.org, and the Almanac that says Deseret News but is actually assembled by Church News staff), not reliable ("Grampa Bill"), or not actually about the subject ("Joseph Smith Papers" page). Routine coverage of church events and quotes without analysis do not add up to significant coverage of this subject. So, not notable under Wikipedia guidelines. Open to reconsideration if significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 21:11, 16 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) 07:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh matiala[edit]

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

Seems to be an unremarkable local politician: has won a municipal ward seat. The only editor doesn't seem to be willing or able to write encyclopedically, and as it stands it is not informative. Slashme (talk) 08:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. City councillors don't pass WP:NPOL, though this is a very large city. Notability not established by sources in the article, it isn't an obvious pass in my BEFORE (it might be, might not) - and article is in a state where TNT wouldn't be a bad thing. Icewhiz (talk) 12:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delhi is a large enough city that a city councillor could be accepted as passing WP:NPOL #2 if the article were written and sourced properly — but no political office, not even an "inherently" notable one like the presidency of an entire country, entitles its holders to keep an article that's written and sourced like this. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 10:35, 16 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) 07:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Story 2010 (Greece)[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because it states that Secret Story 2010 is the fifth season of the Greece edition of Big Brother that would have aired on ANT1. The only source in this article is dead and after searching Google there are no other sources and I had to go via the Wayback Machine to find the source and I don't see any mention of the title being Secret Story. Also in the end the fifth season ended up on rival broadcaster Alpha TV in 2010. [39]. Information about the actual fifth season is covered in the parent article. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 07:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it doesn't even appear if this has been aired, but even if it did, the lack of content alone in the article if created today, would have sent it back to draft space and covered in the article instead. --Gonnym (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no evidence that it meets WP:TVSHOW by, you know, actually having been broadcast over the air. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a section on Season 5 in the Big Brother (Greek TV series) article. There is no hint that is was called "Secret Story". ——Chalk19 (talk) 06:55, 16 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roshanara Ebrahim[edit]

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

no evidence of notability. Other winners of this title do not have articles.

the lawsuit is not encyclopedic content; the remainder or her career has no element of notability . DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"no evidence of notability. Other winners of this title do not have articles." ??? She was the only DETHRONED miss kenya. Just google it.Article most be improved, but not deleted.~~KAMK1~~

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

she is more important bcause she was dethroned? DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't say she is more important because of her being dethroned. Im just saying she is the only one. And thats why she has articles all over kenya. Others are coming from rural areas and dont have even internet to write an article lmao. This one is a kenyan celeb working for tv. ~~KAMK1~~

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable, primarily because of being dethroned and being a Kenyan celebrity, as can be seen from the many news articles regarding her over a sustained period in relation to multiple events. FOARP (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which events: I see only the nude pictures and the consequent law suit and dethronement. DGG ( talk ) 15:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC) ,[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly notable. I believe page should be improved but not deleted. I googled her name & checked her socialmedia page and discovered she is currently participating at the "world supermodel all star championship" in china. Just google 世界名模全明星冠军

JkWikiAfro (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)JkWikiAfro[reply]

( talk ) —Preceding undated comment added 17:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

INDEED. I GOOGLED IT ASWELL. CHECK REFFERENCE. ^[2] ^[3]

^[4]

AWDF 18:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tuidang movement[edit]

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

This page lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent source to substantiate notability per WP:GNG and is not verifiable per WP:V. Specifically:

1) Of the sources cited in the article, the only ones that actually mention the Tuidang movement are:
- The archived webpage for the listing of the Tuidang movement on the www.placestogoinnewyork.com website. This is self-published and not an RS.
- The Tuidang Homepage. This is self-published and not an RS.
- The Epoch Times. This is not an independent RS for political controversies involving Falun Gong (see the consensus on this issue in the discussion here).
- Scholarly articles quoting the Epoch Times, where the Epoch Times quote is the part that is being used in the article (e.g., Patricia Thornton, Manufacturing Dissent in Transnational China in "Popular Protest in China").
- an article in The Christian Science Monitor written by a former Epoch Times reporter and admitted FLG activist. The problems with the independence of an article written by a self-admitted Falun Gong activist are self-explanatory.

2) The remaining sources on the page do not mention the Tuidang movement, but are instead related to the 'Nine Commentaries' and the oppression of Falun Gong in general. Separate articles already exist for both of these subjects which contain all the subject matter discussed on the Tuidang movement page.

3) A further search as part of WP:BEFORE brings up only sources quoting the Epoch Times or Falun Gong activists.

4) As a final note, whilst we cannot edit original research into pages on Wiki, anyone with knowledge of China will find the idea that 300 million people, or even 195 million, have quit the communist party (or even simply declared their opposition to it) patently ridiculous, since its membership is much less than both of these figures and these figures would constitute 20-30% of the population of the PRC. However, at the very least we can say that the claim that there is a movement within Chinese society to quit the Chinese communist party is an extraordinary one, and as such (per WP:FRINGE) requires more to substantiate it than is presented here. Evidence of individual people quitting the CCP is not enough, since there is no sign that they do so as part of any movement. FOARP (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the proposer of the AfD has done their research, and non-primary or non-secondary reliable sources are hard to near impossible to come by. There is a resolution about the subject during the 115th United States Congress, but that is insufficient to establish notability. If there was an article about opposition to or criticism of the Chinese Communist Party, such content as are in the article which is the subject of the AfD would fall under its scope. That said, given the lack of non-primary reliable sources which give the subject significant coverage I have to say it is WP:TOOSOON.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:38, 15 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 The Empire Trilogy. Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tsurani[edit]

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

Fictional race of people in a fictional universe. While the novels that contain the fiction appear to pass the GNG, this level of detail does not - apart from a few fanpages I can't see any out-of-universe sources for this. The Land (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but reduce dramatically; however if someone creates a merge target I would prefer a merge. There are several of these unsourced articles about topics from Raymond E. Feist novels (Midkemia, Pantathians, Crydee); these should each have 1-3 paragraphs in some article on the The Riftwar Universe. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced this to a 1-paragraph article; the old version can be seen in the revision history. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question. How does a merge with The Empire Trilogy sound?Vorbee (talk) 18:09, 10 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 13:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Smith Jnr[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Most Google hits appear to fail RS. Strikerforce^Talk 16:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. This is a difficult one because African celebrities can have a high profile in their own countries and not have any mention in what we would call a RS in the US or UK. Someone would need to be prepared to do a bit of additional work to bring this up to standard. Deb (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, a search for in-depth, independent sources turns up none that indicate the subject meets WP:NACTOR's criteria. Note that draftifying the article is also a promising alternative to deletion.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 10 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) 07:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Haase[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:AUTHOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty PROMO too. Legacypac (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Doesn't meet any notability standards. Fails the GNG, WP:NACTOR, and WP:NAUTHOR.Sandals1 (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 19:31, 16 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 2017 New Jersey elections. And / or 24th Legislative District (New Jersey). Sandstein 13:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 State Senate election for New Jersey's 24th District[edit]

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

Not a sufficiently notable event. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating:

Redirect to whatever the main article on the election is. Legacypac (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect both articles to 2017 New Jersey elections and / or 24th Legislative District (New Jersey) (and I understand that redirect must be only one article but merge can be to either or both). Neither election merits a standalone article and the choice is to redirect to the article for elections that year in general or to the district. Alansohn (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Alansohn above. Either target page is fine. Bkissin (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Although I would like to see the articles stay, I know I will not be able to do that. So I suggest the be merge into section regarding elections into 24th Legislative District (New Jersey) where nothing is obstructed on those two pages regarding the elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnml84 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the proper article as I'm not sure what's there to merge. SportingFlyer talk 04:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Either Keep or merge with 24th Legislative District (New Jersey) SaraLiX5 (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and expand on the proposed target. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:24, 14 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 Sydney Swans players#Listed players yet to make their debut for Sydney. Anything worth merging is still available from the history. Randykitty (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Durak Tucker[edit]

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

Has not played a game yet, does not meet WP:NAFL WP:TOOSOON Screech1616 (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of Sydney Swans players#Listed players yet to make their debut for Sydney. Valid search term, why hide it completely? The-Pope (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @The-Pope: In the case that he doesn't play for Sydney and is then delisted, would you say to delete the redirect? --SuperJew (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that list of players, there is a section of players who were "delisted without playing a game". Could also redirect to the AFL Draft page, as he is currently (borderline) notable for 1 thing - being drafted to an AFL team, so being redirected to either part of that - the draft, or the team, makes the most sense (to me). The-Pope (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge, the target offered is viable and sensible. Szzuk (talk) 21:05, 17 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. postdlf (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

US Airways Flight 1702[edit]

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

Not notable aviation incident. BTW plane was not written off per ASN. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not particularly noteworthy for a mention in wikipedia and certainly not a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Looks like NOTNEWS and that this lacks a lasting impact. The immediate aftermath saw coverage as expected but it trailed off.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Burst of coverage around event. Subsequent mention in piece on disaster selfies, and more in-depth coverage on a 10 million dollar injury lawsuit and the NTSB findings. In my opinion this doesn't rise to WP:GNG at present. Icewhiz (talk) 06:29, 12 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) 07:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Octacube (puzzle)[edit]

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

No significant coverage and no references in the article. The external link is an unreliable source. SL93 (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find evidence for significant coverage. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is no evidence of significant coverage either inside or outside the article. Chetsford (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above arguments. SportingFlyer talk 07:04, 13 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) 07:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Altersex[edit]

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

Non-WP:Notable. A neologism; see WP:NEO. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have had to remove most of the content, as it was copied from other websites, in violation of our copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - a non-notable neologism. I'm not sure enough of what it is supposed to mean to suggest a redirect. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism. I have seen this term before, though as a neologism for being unsure of one's sexual orientation (which is not what's described here) — but as written, this is not an encyclopedia article about a recognized thing, but just an unparsably muddled dictionary definition of a novel term, and that's not what Wikipedia is here for. Bearcat (talk) 21:38, 10 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) 07:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malachy Nugent[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only for serving on a municipal committee. This is not a level of office that passes WP:NPOL, but the article is not reliably sourced anywhere near well enough to deem him special: the referencing here is about half primary sources that contribute nothing at all toward establishing notability, and half glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in media coverage that isn't about him. None of this, neither the substance nor the sourcing, is enough to make a person notable for serving at the neighborhood council level of office. There's also a probable conflict of interest here, as the creator's username was "Mbn3632" and they've never made a single edit to any Wikipedia article besides this and our article about the neighborhood Nugent represents. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Being on a neighborhood advisory committee doesn't show notability and he lacks the significant independent coverage needed to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NPOL. A resume piece. SportingFlyer talk 01:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a member of a neighbrohood advisory committee is not even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 17 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. the detailed "keep" arguments have remained unrebutted. Sandstein 13:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buttermilk Crispy Tenders[edit]

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

Notability concerns. An attempt to redirect to List of McDonald's products was reverted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of McDonald's products They're chicken tenders sold at McDonald's and certainly not a special product. You know an article is struggling for expansion when half of it is an ingredient list. Nate • (chatter) 06:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A product does not have to be "special" to be notable though. Rather, notability is typically based upon the level of coverage a topic has received in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of McDonald's products Not very notable --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a notable product from a major corporation and has received significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Fox News (2017-12-30). "McDonald's brings back Buttermilk Crispy Tenders". Fox News. Retrieved 12 December 2018.
  The article notes:
  
  McDonald’s has officially brought back Buttermilk Crispy Tenders, and fans are rejoicing the return of the batter laden chicken. On Dec. 28, the fast food giant tweeted the good news, along with a video of some approving grandmothers dabbing and boogieing with the meat strips. While chicken nuggets are a staple of McDonald’s fare, the Illinois headquartered chain has evidently been experimenting with the ideal position for tenders on their menu. According to The Daily Meal, the chain discontinued Chicken Selects in 2013, only to reintroduce them as Buttermilk Crispy Tenders in November 2017. Consumers embraced with such ferocity that supply soon ran out, and on the brink of a new year, the strips are apparently back.
2. Carman, Tim (2017-10-06). "McDonald's just reintroduced chicken tenders, and they're actually really good". Washington Post. Retrieved 12 December 2018.
  The article notes:
  
  When I flipped open the lunchbox-like container for McDonald’s Buttermilk Crispy Tenders, I didn’t know what to expect, but it wasn’t this: a drool response.
  I couldn’t have cared less about the kids as I gazed upon these tenders, all golden and slammable. The chicken strips looked like they were actually sliced from an animal. The coated breast meat came in different shapes and sizes, some long and comet-like, others wide like a ping-pong paddle. They didn’t have the unnatural uniformity of nuggets, the snack that, until recently, was a crime against chicken.
  Some background: After a two-year hiatus, McDonald’s has reintroduced chicken strips to menus nationwide under the animal-free name of Buttermilk Crispy Tenders, which is an improvement, I guess, over the old moniker. Chicken Select Tenders, after all, sounded like another case of anthropomorphic cannibalism.
3. Kate Taylor and Dennis Green (9 October 2017). "McDonald's has a new menu item to replace the Chicken Selects it killed — here's the verdict". Business Insider. Retrieved 12 December 2018.
  The article notes:
  
  When McDonald's ditched Chicken Selects in 2015, many mourned the loss of the dish.
  For the past two years, customers at the fast-food chain haven't had anything but the McNugget for their chicken-dipping purposes. That just changed. McDonald's recently launched the Buttermilk Crispy Tenders — a new take on the chicken tender.
  At a chain with such an iconic chicken dipper already, the tenders have a tall order to live up to. We decided to try the Buttermilk Crispy Tenders ourselves in an effort to see how the new menu item stacks up against the ghosts of chicken tenders past.
4. Cheng, Andria (31 January 2018). "McDonald's Lovin' Sales Growth From Value Menu, But Not Margins". Forbes. Retrieved 12 December 2018.
  The article notes:
  
  One notable driver behind that scorecard? Demand in the United States, its largest market. Domestic comparable sales increased 4.5% in the fourth quarter, thanks to the McPick 2 for $5 promotions of core-menu items, demand for the new Buttermilk Crispy Tenders as well as rising delivery orders. In contrast, sales have been flat for the rest of the U.S. quick-service sandwich industry, CFO Kevin Ozan said on a conference call Tuesday.
5. Walansky, Aly (2017-09-29). "McDonald's tries to make chicken tenders happen ... again". TODAY.com. Retrieved 12 December 2018.
  The article notes:
  
  When it comes to chicken, McDonald's may best be known for its McNuggets ... but now there's a new tender in town.
  McDonald’s has just unleashed Buttermilk Crispy Tenders — its newest take on the finger food classic — which are chicken tenders are made with 100 percent white meat chicken that's been battered, lightly seasoned and breaded. They're also free of artificial flavors, colors and preservatives.
  The tenders are served alongside any of McDonald's nine signature sauces, which include Creamy Ranch, Honey, Honey Mustard, Hot Mustard, Spicy Buffalo, Sriracha Mac Sauce, Sweet ‘n Sour, Tangy Barbeque, plus a brand new "Signature Sauce" — a creamy, sweet and tangy sauce that McDonald's says is inspired by its ever-popular Big Mac Special Sauce (so basically a souped-up version of Thousand Island dressing?).
6. Taylor, Kate (19 December 2017). "McDonald's new Dollar Menu means massive price cuts for customers". Business Insider India. Retrieved 12 December 2018.
  The article notes:
  
  McDonald's is rolling out the new value menu on January 4. The $1 items include menu offerings such as the Sausage Burrito, McChicken, and Cheeseburger. Items including the 2-piece Buttermilk Crispy Tenders, Bacon McDouble, and McCafé beverages will be sold for $2, and Happy Meals and Triple Cheeseburgers will cost $3.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Buttermilk Crispy Tenders to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Given the significant coverage a standalone article passes our GN guidelines and therefore should be split. We also have a precedence of retaining articles on notable McDonald's products. Buttermilk Crispy Tenders has a long and extensive history with McDonalds and based on sources is no less notable than the McChicken or McNuggets. Buttermilk Crispy Tenders is offered at every McDonald's location across the global. Therefore this is a major international product with an extensive history. I have provided a level of sourcing which passes GNG.
Valoem ^talk ^contrib 07:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG as per source searches and a review of available sources. Google News provides several pages of news results, with several articles providing significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. The significant coverage in reliable sources provided by Valoem (talk · contribs).
2. Wasserman, Todd (2006-06-19). "Intelligence Gathering". Brandweek. Vol. 47, no. 25. ISSN 1064-4318.
  The article notes:
  
  Sometimes, though, people make what look like prospective ads. In one video, a twentysomething guy goes to the counter at McDonald's, grabs his bag of food, sits down and zealously eats some fries. The latter action prompts a Ronald stand-in to shake his head ruefully. "Ronald says, 'Chew with your mouth closed, jerk,'" reads a caption at the end of the 30-second video. In another video, two teen boys face off over a Chicken Selects until one beats the other with a baseball bat. "We wanted to mimic the commercials that were out when chicken selects were popular," wrote "Mark," the creator of the clip, in an e-mail.
  ...
  Fast forward to 2004 and McD's TV spot for its Chicken Selects. An unshaven guy with spiky hair and a prominent wallet-chain dangling from his pocket is at an office copy machine soliloquizing about his Chicken Selects. "This is the 'Don't touch my chicken' zone," he all but yells to his coworkers, who seem to regard him as a crank and don't laugh at anything he says, but instead regard him warily. He goes on, talking as if he was Al Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon and the Chicken Selects are his hostages.
3. "McDonald's Adds New Product to Its Line of Chicken Items". New York Amsterdam News. Vol. 88, no. 37. 1997-09-11.
  The article notes:
  
  McDonald's today announced the introduction of "Chicken Selects," a crispy new menu item that recently debuted in nearly 600 New York tri-state area McDonald's restaurants.
  Chicken Selects are boneless, all-white chicken tenderloin strips, cooked in special spices and seasoning. McDonald's will offer them in a la carte packages of four, seven and 14 pieces, and as a 4-piece and 7-piece Extra Value Meals. Customers can also order the product as a 3-piece Happy Meal.
  Chicken Selects joins McDonald's family of chicken items that includes the popular Chicken McNuggets, introduced in 1982, and the Crispy Chicken and Grilled Chicken Deluxe sandwiches, which debuted last year.
4. Sperber, Bob (2002-03-11). "McD's Wings it With Sandwiches, Brownies". Brandweek.
  The article notes:
  
  Looking for a hit to reverse five quarters of earnings declines, McDonald's has accelerated plans for New Tastes Menu item tryouts as it readies a steady stream of differentiated products.
  Products in the McPipeline for limited-time offers this year include a fried chicken sandwich of tenderloin strips under the Chicken Selects name, a new grilled chicken sandwich, a brownie, a pork tenderloin sandwich and a Philly cheese steak sandwich.
  ...
  The Chicken Selects sandwich will bow March 29 on the New Tastes Menu, replacing the Chicken Breast Parmesan sandwich. The Selects name has previously been used to test adult-leaning chicken entries from sandwiches to McNuggets.
5. "McDonald's adds chicken strips to menu. 'Chicken Selects' similar to 'chicken fingers' of rivals". NBC News. Associated Press. 2004-07-07. Archived from the original on 2018-12-16. Retrieved 2018-12-16.
  The article notes:
  
  McDonald’s Corp. added chicken strips to the menu at its U.S. restaurants starting Tuesday, hoping to carve out a bigger piece of a growing chicken market.
  The fast-food company said its new Chicken Selects are made with all white meat from chicken breasts, similar to the “chicken fingers” sold at other restaurants.
  ...
  The company said 85 percent of its more than 13,600 U.S. restaurants were selling the new item Tuesday, with the rest to have it within a week. Chicken Selects were test-marketed earlier in Columbus, Ohio; Charlotte, N.C.; Denver; Nashville, Tenn., and New York City.
  McDonald’s will launch a four-week advertising blitz for the Chicken Selects featuring U.S. Olympians such as Serena Williams and Mia Hamm on Aug. 10, just before the start of the Summer Olympics. The tagline: “Prepare to Defend Your Chicken.”
6. Reed, Rochelle (2006-06-08). "Do You Want a Salad with that? – Everyone Eats at McDonald's Sometimes, and the Chain Now Offers Healthier Fare. The Tribune Staff Checks It Out". The Tribune. Archived from the original on 2018-12-16. Retrieved 2018-12-16.
  The article notes:
  
  I also compared a couple of McDonald's other relatively low-cal offerings: the old favorite Chicken McNuggets and the newer Chicken Selects Premium Breast Strips.
  The McNuggets were how I remembered them: dry and crunchy on the outside and moist and spongy on the inside. The Chicken Selects strips are whole pieces of fried chicken breast with a peppery breading.
  They're tastier than the McNuggets, but higher in fat and calories. A box of six McNuggets has 170 calories and 10 grams of fat, while three Chicken Selects pieces have 380 calories and 20 grams of fat.
7. Howard, Theresa (2004-07-28). "Fast-food firms hope to get more bucks with clucks". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2018-12-16. Retrieved 2018-12-16.
  The article notes:
  
  McDonald's strutted its feathers Tuesday by launching all-white-meat Chicken Selects strips, which, at $2.89 for three, cost about $1 more than a Quarter Pounder.
  ...
  Olympians Serena Williams and Mia Hamm will star in ads starting Aug. 10 to promote Chicken Selects and its three dipping sauces.
8. Horovitz, Bruce (2005-02-16). "McDonald's to give free samples of Chicken Selects". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2018-12-16. Retrieved 2018-12-16.
  The article notes:
  
  McDonald's, the kingpin of all things beef, today announces plans to hand out millions of free samples from what has quickly evolved into its fastest-growing food line: chicken.
  The giveaway: Chicken Selects, its profitable chicken strips that fetch about $4.39 for a five-piece order. McDonald's expects to hand out more than 4 million Thursday through Sunday (11 a.m. to 2 p.m. ).
  ...
  McDonald's is counting on its Chicken Selects to lure more chicken lovers. Since they were introduced in August 2004, Selects have been a huge success and helped increase the company's same-store sales by double digits. With the giveaway, McDonald's hopes to garner buzz and customer tryouts.
  ...
  Industry analysts are impressed by the audacity of the promotion. "It will help McDonald's capture traffic from competitors," says Christopher Muller, director of the Center for Multi-Unit Restaurant Management at Orlando's University of Central Florida, "It will nudge some consumers to switch."
9. Singh, Shruti Date; Giammona, Craig (2015-02-18). "McDonald's Brings Back Tenders, Giving Boost to Chicken Industry". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2015-02-21. Retrieved 2018-12-16.
  The article notes:
  
  McDonald’s Corp. is bringing chicken tenders back to its menu next month in a move that’s rippling through the poultry industry.
  The item, called Chicken Selects, will begin appearing at U.S. restaurants for at least a limited time in early March, the Oak Brook, Illinois-based company said this week, confirming speculation in the industry. The product, made with fried strips of tenderloin chicken meat, was last sold in 2013 after more than a decade on the menu.
  For the poultry business, the move is easing concerns about an oversupply of chicken in the U.S. It also underscores how much clout McDonald’s has with suppliers: Though the company is mired in a sales slump and shaking up its leadership, it can still sway the meat industry with a single menu item. The increased demand from McDonald’s should help prop up chicken-breast prices through the summer, said Brett Hundley, an analyst for BB&T Capital Markets.
  ...
  McDonald’s cut Chicken Selects from its menu in 2013 as part of an effort to streamline its offerings. That was back before beef prices climbed to a record high last year. McDonald’s now hopes customers will embrace the return of the tenders, which will be available in orders of three.
10. Baxter-Wright, Dusty (2016-05-06). "12 discontinued McDonalds foods you forgot existed". Cosmopolitan. Archived from the original on 2018-12-16. Retrieved 2018-12-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Chicken Selects
  Introduced in 2004, discontinued in 2013
  Maccy D's introduced chicken selects to the menu as an upmarket fancy brother to the chicken nuggets in 2009, and although they've brought them back at certain times for limited edition batches (like in September 2016, just FYI), they left the menu full time in 2013.
11. Baertlin, Lisa (2013-03-01). Hudson, Dale (ed.). "McDonald's dropping Fruit & Walnut Salad, Chicken Selects in U.S." Reuters. Archived from the original on 2018-12-16. Retrieved 2018-12-16.
12. Herman, Eric (2005-02-17). "McDonald's handing out samples of Chicken Selects". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 2018-12-16. Retrieved 2018-12-16.
  The article notes:
  
  The world's largest restaurant company introduced Chicken Selects -- white-meat chicken strips -- in August 2004. McDonald's is seeking to capitalize on the nation's increasing hunger for chicken, perceived as a healthier source of protein than red meat.
13. Tomisawa, Ayai (2005-02-18). "McDonald's adds bit of spice to menu". Daily Herald. Archived from the original on 2018-12-16. Retrieved 2018-12-16.
  The article notes:
  
  Launched last August, Chicken Selects are targeted at adults, while Chicken McNuggets are consumed by both children and adults. Chicken Selects strips, made of 100 percent chicken breast meat, are larger and longer than McNuggets and have a spicier flavor.
14. Carpenter, Dave (2004-09-08). "McDonald's sales rise for 16th straight month; more new items on way". Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2018-12-16. Retrieved 2018-12-16.
  The article notes:
  
  The recent launch of Chicken Selects contributed to a better-than-expected 7.2 percent jump in same-store sales at McDonald's 13,600 U.S. restaurants, the company said Wednesday in reporting August results.
  ...
  J.P. Morgan analyst John Ivankoe said McDonald's U.S. August sales increase was particularly impressive considering it was up against tough comparisons to last year's rebound.
  "We expect continued strong consumer demand for the new higher-priced and higher-quality Chicken Selects to allow the brand to continue recent average check gains," he said in a note to investors.
15. Goulding, Matt (December 2007). "The First Annual 20 Worst Foods in America". Men's Health. Vol. 22, no. 10. ISSN 1054-4836. Archived from the original on 2008-01-07. Retrieved 2018-12-16 – via MSN.
  The article notes:
  
  Worst Fast-Food Chicken Meal: Chicken Selects Premium Breast Strips from McDonald's (5 pieces) with creamy ranch sauce
  
  830 calories
  55 grams (g) fat (4.5 g trans fat)
  48 g carbohydrates
  
  The only thing "premium" about these strips is the caloric price you pay. Add a large fries and regular soda and this seemingly innocuous chicken meal tops out at 1,710 calories.
  Change Your Chicken: 20 McNuggets have the same impact. Instead, choose Mickey D's six-piece offering with BBQ sauce and save yourself 530 calories.
16. Addady, Michal (2016-03-02). "7 Fast Food Items That Need to Return in 2016". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2018-12-16. Retrieved 2018-12-16.
  The article notes:
  
  McDonald’s Chicken Selects
  
  Like KFC’s Popcorn Chicken, these were a pleasant alternative to regular old chicken nuggets. McDonald’s launched Chicken Selects in 2002 and left them on the menu for over a decade. Fans were excited by their return in March 2015, but had to experience the pain of loss all over again when they were swiftly removed.
17. Benezra, Karen; Hume, Scott (1997-09-08). "McD fights back with new chicken test". Brandweek.
  The article notes:
  
  As McDonald's execs put final touches on a national ad n due next month, the company opened a second front of its latest menu offensive against Burger King and other fast-food rivals with the regional test of a new whole-breast chicken product, Chicken Selects.
  ...
  Chicken Selects, which launched in New York, Miami and Washington, D.C. markets last Friday, are crispy, tender pieces of whole chicken breasts. More important, they address on-the-go consumers and can serve as either a snack or a full meal. That factor has boosted sales of KFC's Crispy Strips, which have developed a strong following among core young males. The new entry will be promoted via TV radio, outdoor, POP and free samples. Leo Burnett, Chicago, handled creative.
  Chicken Selects, which will also aim at BK's Chicken Tenders, are served with one of three dipping sauces in 4-pc., 7-pc. or 10-pc. portions; add fries and a drink for a combo meal. McD execs said plans for a national rollout were not yet solidified.
18. Rayner, Jay (2012). My Dining Hell: Twenty Ways To Have a Lousy Night Out. London: Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-241-96320-3. Retrieved 2018-12-16.
  The book notes:
  
  Next I tried one of the new dishes recently introduced as part of their 'Ever Changing New Tastes' campaign. 'Chicken Selects' are breaded strips of chicken breast, and are a truly remarkable example of fast-food science. Although they are clearly pieces of breast, they taste of chicken not at all. They taste of salt.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Buttermilk Crispy Tenders to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buttermilk Crispy Tenders were previously known as Chicken Selects. Cunard (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose a merge to List of McDonald's products because there is sufficient information in the sources to support a standalone article. The article can discuss the 2004 promotion campaign for the rollout of Chicken Selects. From a source:
McDonald’s will launch a four-week advertising blitz for the Chicken Selects featuring U.S. Olympians such as Serena Williams and Mia Hamm on Aug. 10, just before the start of the Summer Olympics. The tagline: “Prepare to Defend Your Chicken.”
The article can discuss ads about Chicken Selects. From a source:
Fast forward to 2004 and McD's TV spot for its Chicken Selects. An unshaven guy with spiky hair and a prominent wallet-chain dangling from his pocket is at an office copy machine soliloquizing about his Chicken Selects. "This is the 'Don't touch my chicken' zone," he all but yells to his coworkers, who seem to regard him as a crank and don't laugh at anything he says, but instead regard him warily. He goes on, talking as if he was Al Pacino in Dog Day Afternoon and the Chicken Selects are his hostages.
The article can discuss Chicken Selects' success between its rollout in August 2004 and a February 2005 article. From the article:
McDonald's is counting on its Chicken Selects to lure more chicken lovers. Since they were introduced in August 2004, Selects have been a huge success and helped increase the company's same-store sales by double digits.
The article can also discuss how Chicken Selects helped improve saves in its August 2004 report and that analysts expected it to continue to help the company increase sales. From a source:
J.P. Morgan analyst John Ivankoe said McDonald's U.S. August sales increase was particularly impressive considering it was up against tough comparisons to last year's rebound. "We expect continued strong consumer demand for the new higher-priced and higher-quality Chicken Selects to allow the brand to continue recent average check gains," he said in a note to investors.
The article can note how Chicken Selects and Chicken McNuggets are targeted at different groups and explain their differences. From a source:
Chicken Selects strips, made of 100 percent chicken breast meat, are larger and longer than McNuggets and have a spicier flavor.
After McDonald's brought back Chicken Selects in 2015, that single decision helped relieve worries about there being an oversupply of chickens that year. From a source:
For the poultry business, the move is easing concerns about an oversupply of chicken in the U.S. It also underscores how much clout McDonald’s has with suppliers: Though the company is mired in a sales slump and shaking up its leadership, it can still sway the meat industry with a single menu item. The increased demand from McDonald’s should help prop up chicken-breast prices through the summer, said Brett Hundley, an analyst for BB&T Capital Markets.
Cunard (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article can also discuss critics' views of Chicken Selects:
1. From Cosmopolitan: Chicken Selects are "an upmarket fancy brother to the chicken nuggets".
2. From Fortune about Chicken Selects: "Like KFC’s Popcorn Chicken, these were a pleasant alternative to regular old chicken nuggets."
3. From The Tribune, "The Chicken Selects strips are whole pieces of fried chicken breast with a peppery breading. They're tastier than the McNuggets, but higher in fat and calories. A box of six McNuggets has 170 calories and 10 grams of fat, while three Chicken Selects pieces have 380 calories and 20 grams of fat."
4. From food critic Jay Rayner's My Dining Hell: Twenty Ways To Have a Lousy Night Out book, "'Chicken Selects' are breaded strips of chicken breast, and are a truly remarkable example of fast-food science. Although they are clearly pieces of breast, they taste of chicken not at all. They taste of salt."
5. From Men's Health in an article titled the "The First Annual 20 Worst Foods in America" about Chicken Selects: "The only thing "premium" about these strips is the caloric price you pay. Add a large fries and regular soda and this seemingly innocuous chicken meal tops out at 1,710 calories. Change Your Chicken: 20 McNuggets have the same impact. Instead, choose Mickey D's six-piece offering with BBQ sauce and save yourself 530 calories."
Cunard (talk) 10:24, 16 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) 07:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Alan Scudder[edit]

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

Most of the sourcing in this article is primary or trivial mentions. I can't find adequate independent sources in reliable publications to establish notability. I removed eight or ten inline links to external sites, which is a hallmark of promotional editing. GNG and WP:ARTIST fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't see the significant, independent coverage required to meet the GNG. I see some passing mentions, some blogs, etc. but not the coverage from reliable sources I think is needed.Sandals1 (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A search of coverage in the usual places turns up nothing beyond what is already in the article, which all seem to be primary or brief mentions. ♟♙ (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing much beyond primary source coverage. Curiocurio (talk) 15:19, 13 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.

^ "Cardinal denies covering up actions of sex abuse claim priest who was son of 'Lord of the Rings' author". Irish Examiner. 13 December 2018. Retrieved 14 December 2018.
^ https://k.sina.cn/article_2165357684_m8110bc7403300f9c9.html?from=sports&subch=osport&http=fromhttp
^ http://sx.sina.cn/news/brand/2018-12-11/detail-ihprknvu2696329.d.html
^ http://www.xiziquan.com/index.php?r=web/thread&tid=4500098&v=4.5.0&share=1

[1] "Cardinal denies covering up actions of sex abuse claim priest who was son of 'Lord of the Rings' author". Irish Examiner. 13 December 2018. Retrieved 14 December 2018.

[2] ttps://k.sina.cn/article_2165357684_m8110bc7403300f9c9.html?from=sports&subch=osport&http=fromhttp

[3] ttp://sx.sina.cn/news/brand/2018-12-11/detail-ihprknvu2696329.d.html

[4] ttp://www.xiziquan.com/index.php?r=web/thread&tid=4500098&v=4.5.0&share=1

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]