Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 December	21 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 delete. Can be draftified or userfied for improvement via WP:REFUND. Sandstein 13:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Devaney[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Has not been subject to much media coverage by reliable sources. Only claim of notability is surviving the titanic's sinking, which is not enough. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 00:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I know it's been sitting here languishing for a long time, but maybe see if it's possible to find more sources? From the bio here it looks like there might have been significant coverage in the 50s? Got here from list of women-related. valereee (talk) 11:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable survivor of the Titanic. Nothing makes Devaney more notable than the other 705 survivors, and I doubt anyone thinks we should have articles on all 706 survivors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:19, 22 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. RL0919 (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Principalities (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This is an impartial nomination following on from a discussion at Talk:Romanian Principalities (disambiguation)#Page mis-named. I have no opinion on the substance of the article. I say only that it cannot remain under its present name, and that !keep is not an option

Romanian Principalities (disambiguation) bears no resemblance to a DAB page. It violates MOS:DAB in all sorts of ways: essay-like material, a picture, non-title-matches, orphan redlinks, irrelevant sections and links, citations, and external links. That is my case for something other than the status quo. If that were all, I could have proposed delete (which I now do as default option to avoid sitting on the fence), but I would accept any outcome except !keep. However, other proposals have been made. I therefore bring the page here.

Background notes, which may help contributors to this discussion get up to speed:

Romanian Principalities (disambiguation) appears to be a translation of ro:Principatele române (dezambiguizare). I do not know what the Romanian rules for DAB pages are, but they are as inapplicable in English WP as English rules are in Romanian WP.
Romanian Principalities redirects to United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia
ro:Principatele române redirects to ro:Principatele române (dezambiguizare). (In English WP, that would be a WP:MALPLACED error.)
ro:Principatele Române (no English equivalent) covers much the same ground as Romanian Principalities (disambiguation).
(Different capitalisation is one of the known tricks in English WP to unhelpfully evade a name clash. I do not know whether Romanian requires a capital for a nationality adjective (as English does) or lowercase (as e.g. French, German and Italian do). The issue of the correct titling of pages in Romanian WP is outside the scope of this discussion - Narky Blert (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Pinging Heptametru, KIENGIR, Dahn and Cnilep, who were involved in the Talk Page discussion. Narky Blert (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find anything here worth keeping or merging. What does "supposed Romanian state forms" mean? Who supposes them? What is a "state form"? The original Romanian expressions may have meaning, but the English as translated doesn't. What are the WP:RS for this "generic term" and its definition as stated here? As for the rest of the article - the historic eras are better covered in the other articles about Romania and the info box on the History of Romania within those articles. The Historic leaders section is not very informative when arranged alphabetically, and it's hard to believe that the area of Romania has had only 21 leaders between ca 82BC and 1878AD. I don't know what the last section, Concepts, entities, formations, other, is meant to cover, including as it does a battle and 'Romanian mediaeval village'. So, delete. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments: First, the closing admin may wish to review the discussion at Talk:Romanian Principalities (disambiguation)#Page mis-named. My reading of that discussion is that it tends to support deleting, but since that was not really a deletion discussion, it may be unfair of me to impute such a notion to others who commented there. Second, I agree with Narky Blert that "keep" is not an option, as the content is nothing like a disambiguation page. I have little specific objection to moving the page or perhaps merging its contents elsewhere, except that leaving a redirect at the current title might invite further problems down the road. For that reason, I suppose you can mark me as delete. Cnilep (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nom. Cnilep makes a point which I might have made and with which I agree. Romanian Principalities (disambiguation) has no valid redirect target. That pagename needs to go whatever the outcome of this debate. Narky Blert (talk) 07:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without bringing up new reason discussed in the article's talk page and having mostly agreed with the opinion of others here; since there are already much better articles that are covering the subject and anyway the creation of this page was a mistaken concept - reinforced by others - and because of other technical problems raised there and here, the best is to delete.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Delete, as per my previous comments on the talk page. This article conflates the notion of "Romanian Principalities" (which is generally a synonym for Danubian Principalities) with anything the editor thought they could construe for a principality that was also Romanian; other content is editor's idea about articles that we should have, though the content is already covered by articles that we do have, meaning this page aims for content forks, probably POV content forks. Dahn (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'General note I would advise that Romanian Principalities we kept as a redirect to Danubian Principalities, and United Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia as a distinct article from both. The former two are a generic geographical notion; the latter is the actual name in use by the confederal state which also briefly named itself Principality of Romania, and was succeeded by the Kingdom of Romania. Dahn (talk) 09:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That issue is probably best dealt with by a {{redirect}} hatnote on the target article. Narky Blert (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to that. Im just advising editors not to fold content here into UP of W&M, nor Danubian Principalities into UP of M&W, having noticed that there was some disagreement (and, IMHO, some confusion) about that issue. Dahn (talk) 23:13, 24 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. Nomination appears to be effectively withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Compulsion (2016 film)[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:NFOE and WP:NFP. Could become a classic. scope_creep^Talk 19:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete. No critic reviews on RottenTomatoes, screened at a film festival but seemingly did not win any awards, and the one source currently attached is a review in a publication that doesn't clearly state its editorial practices and may not be RS. Sources added by Nardog clearly demonstrate notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC) 05:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I can't vouch for the independence and credibility of every one of the sources I just added, Cinematografo is a publication of Fondazione ente dello spettacolo, established in 1946; Film.it is owned by GEDI and partners with its sister publication La Stampa; NonSoloCinema is run by Cineforum Italiano, recognized by the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities; Cinematographe, Sentieri selvaggi, and Quinlan are legally registered journalistic periodicals, for what it's worth. So I don't see how it could possibly fail WP:GNG/WP:NFP.

(The whole reason I created the article was because I was once confused by another film titled Sadie, but I'm nonetheless surprised by this AfD to be honest. Analeigh Tipton and Jakob Cedergren are fairly known actors.) Nardog (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Three of the references provided indicate that Tipton is working on the film, one describes it as tired and derivative, one is listing and describing who is in the film. The Quinlan ref describes it as Sadie proves a work tired and derivative, lacking a personal look and a real expressive urgency., the cinematographe ref describes it as A quickly forgettable film, entieriselvaggi.it is an interview, and not applicable, Non RS. Film.it is a description of the film in the festival. On top of that it has a 3.6 on IMDB. It is not notable. The other ref was a neutral painting of colours, describing the colours used in the film. Ive no doubt it will become a cult classic. The idea that notable and very famous actors do not star in the most terrible and dud films is nonsense, please take a look at this List of films considered the worst. scope_creep^Talk 08:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue that it's a good film, but aren't the reviews in Quinlan and Il cineocchio enough to meet WP:GNG? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rosguill It is definently wide coverage. I would say so. scope_creep^Talk 20:01, 21 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 13:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Starr[edit]

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

With all due respect to the departed soul. I do not find the subject meeting WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. All of the coverage available online are about her recent death. WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS also apply. Hitro talk 19:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding any coverage other than of the suicide, and some of those articles are really about the risks of lasik. Honestly I hope we delete before her family discovers she's got a Wikipedia page, and then discovers that it's been deleted. They don't need that. valereee (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Out of respect more than anything else. This is an easy one event violation and Wikipedia is not a newspaper.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, and her death, while tragic, doesn't change that. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 08:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or something Makes sense as an example in LASIK#Risks (which currently doesn't mention suicide at all), but less so as a standalone meterologist bio. Then again, Dick Fletcher's reference list looks a lot like hers (two morbid, one independent), which shouldn't matter per WP:OTHERSTUFF, but kind of does. Maybe delete them both? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The incident is notable, but the person is not. I propose that the pertinent details about the incident be transferred to a new article about the incident while this article is deleted. NoCOBOL (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like @InedibleHulk:'s suggestion; despite the non-notability of the subject itself (meteorologist articles on Wikipedia already corner the market in peacock content), this is the first time I've ever heard of suicide being a potential factor of LASIK side effects. However, a standalone article about the incident, regardless of subject notability, would fall under WP:NOTNEWS. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This whole incident violates the not news guidelines. Her death was covered as a news event, although only that because of navel gazing in the news industry. I had never heard of her until she died, and as a Detroit resident have a good sense of major figures in our area. She was not such by any stretch of the imagination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, but how very, very sad.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WJBK or delete - not independently notability, but could be pointed to the channel she was working at at the time of coverage about her --DannyS712 (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge LASIK risks are indeed now a trending topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim1868 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 27 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. Without any notability-supporting references added to the article or mentioned in the comments, the "keep" comments here carry little weight, even before discounting the duplicates and SPAs. RL0919 (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global Youth Model United Nations[edit]

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

While sounding extremely official, this conference and the organization behind it literally only have a presence in their own web page, press releases and social media - in other words, the film-thin sourcing currently in the article is the best that can be produced. Good luck unearthing anything more substantial; I couldn't. Optimistically, this is WP:TOOSOON since the first conference hasn't actually taken place yet - maybe it'll pop up in the news then. Realistically, there's no notability at this point. - Previous PROD was removed w/o improvements. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG; no reliable source coverage that I can tell. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Model United Nations is certainly a thing. Wondering whether this could be merged there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the editor who originally proposed PROD. It's a specific Model UN conference for teenagers with no coverage that indicates its notability. The veneer of being official-sounding is just them mimicking the UN. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and can be improved.BlueD954 (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... that's not how this works, mate... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not your mate. BlueD954 (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and will surely gain followers over time. A number of conferences such as Asia Pacific Model United Nations Conference, and Harvard World Model United Nations have articles on wikipedia and we cannot ignore the fact that model united nations is actually a thing now a days. Even UN has ratified it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.53.88.137 (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrate current notability using references. We don't deal in possible future notability. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does this Demonstrates notability? https://www.buzzfeed.com/sarmadiqbal/the-biggest-mun-of-asia-is-set-to-take-place-in-ku-33h8y — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.53.88.137 (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New Reference added. https://mymun.com/muns/global-youth-mun-2019 Sakhir.ali (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In-house press release; worthless. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable organisation, fails WP:ORG. Poor quality references. Ajf773 (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability can be seen from https://www.buzzfeed.com/sarmadiqbal/the-biggest-mun-of-asia-is-set-to-take-place-in-ku-33h8y. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.53.88.137 (talk) 09:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: 39.53.88.137 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

Promotional blurb written by an organizer of the conference; worthless. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The concept of a Model United Nations is notable, but this organization does not seem to be the subject of any significant amount of coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Peacock (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin. The IPs and Sakhir.ali appear to be the same individual. Peacock (talk) 13:09, 27 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. Can be restored via WP:REFUND for the purpose of history-merging with Draft:Idol goods if somebody really wants to work on that. Sandstein 13:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Idol goods[edit]

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

Repeatedly re-created copy of Draft:Idol goods that is not ready for publishing. I feel a little iffy re-re-G6'ing as uncontroversial housekeeping so I figured I would take it here. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A10 It's a poor translation of ko:아이돌 굿즈 which probably ought to be a more restrained section of K-pop or Korean idol. The translation renders fandom as Pandom in section titles - I'm sure a machine translation wouldn't do that. On the other hand I'd expect a human to remove the "[edit | edit source]" from the section headers. I've seen similar repeats speedied as A10 to the draft, and as G6. Cabayi (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From how I read WP:A10, it only applies to articles that duplicate a topic already represented on the English wiki, so I'm not sure it could be an A10 of a Korean wiki article. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"as A10 to the draft". Cabayi (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as massive overkill for what should be, at most, two or three sentences in respective idol articles. Redirect doesn't make sense with multiple targets available in enwiki (Japanese idol, Korean idol, specific groups, etc). Merge doesn't make sense because no editor should have to spend valuable time dealing with this large amount of detailed and oddly-translated text (e.g. "cheering stick", which English-speaking idol fans would probably call "penlight" or "cyalume"). Bakazaka (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move/histmerge it with the draft version at Draft:Idol goods and see if it ends up an article later on. This is a bit different from what User:Bakazaka is saying above–I don't think it should be merged in the article space, but there's no reason to delete this article and leave an earlier version of it behind at Draft:Idol goods. Dekimasuよ! 21:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move/histmerge I agree with the above explanations. Deleting would be an overkill. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article (created by students as part of the educational assignment simultaneously (not just a translation of) with ko:아이돌 굿즈) is indeed in need of code/grammar copyediting. It also likely needs a {{globalize}} as the said students are Korean so the article is written from Korean perspective and doesn't discuss non-Korean markets sufficiently. That said, as the instructor who authorized the students to write on this topic, I think the topic is notable and unless you think this raises to a WP:TNT level, I think the article should be kept. Unfortunately, the students used mostly Korean souces which are difficult for most of us to verify, and most of them are newspaper-level, but a few are Korean academic papers ([1], [2], [3], plus there is [4] which contains English word phrase "idol goods", through I don't think the students cite it despite it being a Korean paper) and anyway, a quick search in English language academic books an articles should suffice to note that the concept of idol goods (or perhaps, idol merchandise) is notable. Consider:

"An important part of idol fandom is the consumption of aidoru guzzu, or idol goods (merchandise)". The term 'idol goods' is used in the book index for several pages of content [5].
"In any case, companies cash in on "idol goods" (compact discs, photo albums, calendars, telephone cards, T-shirts, key chains, lapel pins, various stationery goods)"
[6] This book (Islands of eight million smiles: idol performance and symbolic production in contemporary Japan) uses the term "idol goods" on at least 11 pages

As such, I stand by my initial assessment that this topic is a notable phenomena. I asked the students to read this AfD for constructive criticism, and I invite you to offer suggestions on how to improve the article (but note the grades are due by Dec 30th the latest, and it is rare to see a student motivated to keep fixing an article after the grading period... for that reason also I strongly object to merging with a draft, it it is still a drafty by New Year, it might as well be deleted because the odds are slim the students will continue the draft process - unless they say otherwise, as I noted I did alert them to this discussion, let's see if they post here). PS. My suggestion to students is to use the three English language sources above, of course. @Bakazaka, Dekimasu, and Shivkarandholiya12: --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the topic is notable. Independent sources in multiple countries discuss "idol goods" as a cultural and economic category (see also "band merchandise" or Concert T-shirt). But in my opinion this article rises to a WP:TNT level, meaning that it would be better to start over with just the title. Bakazaka (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: Could you explain why you think this is unsalvagable gibberish, i.e. TNT level? I think it is a decent start with some reliable, (if non-English) references, of course in need of expansion and copyediting for structure and grammar issues. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use the term "unsalvageable gibberish", so I'm not going to explain that. I provided my reasoning in previous comments. It's clear that we have a difference of opinion on an article that your students wrote. There's no need to escalate that into anything else. I'm happy to let others weigh in. Bakazaka (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I lost interest in commenting further once it became apparent that to do so would be either doing Jihye Um's assignment or Piotrus' marking, which is pretty much my principal objection to helping out a COI or paid editor. Cabayi (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify I don't believe that it just needs a copyedit. Many portions of the article do not make sense or the point isn't clear and it would take reading all the sources to try to fix it and do a rewrite. Why that should be someone else's problem is beyond me especially in a classroom environment. I think having students contribute to Wikipedia is a great idea but I come across too many articles from students that need major overhaul. IMO that overhaul shouldn't be passed on to the community. There's enough to do. And how did I get here? Because I was looking to do some copyediting today. I did not know what idol goods were before clicking on the article and after reading the article I still am not sure what idol goods are. I also had to do a bunch of searching to just understand what was meant by idol in this context. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 00:32, 26 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. Per A7. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Tyler Ford Bialek Memorial Foundation, Inc.[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. I did a search and could only find confirmation that the foundation exists and then some promo for the foundation. No in-depth coverage found. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 14:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My searches found nothing better. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 14:57, 20 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) CoolSkittle (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hunt–Lauda rivalry[edit]

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

No convincing evidence that this subject is independently notable. I cannot see anything that cannot be achieved in the articles on the drivers and the film. T v x1 14:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support There probably was a rivalry as there always is when two people are fighting for a title at the pinnacle of a sport, but to suggest it was anything more than any of the others over time because it was the subject of a movie, then no. Fecotank (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC) Support: if any rivaly deserves an article, it's the Prost–Senna rivaly. As it is, that rivalry works just fine as a subsection of Prost's article, which makes this article unnecessary. 1.144.111.106 (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I cannot see any policy-based argument that supports deletion, and given that there is plenty of coverage of specifically this title in reliable sources (you only need to click a few of the links in the header line at "Find sources:" to see that) I think it easily passes the notability test. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is lots of evidence that this is independently notable as can be seen in the find sources box at the top of this discussion (particularly in books). I see no reason why this article should be deleted, there is nothing in wikipedia polic that says it needs to be deleted (that I'm aware of) and the "Find sources" at the top of this discussion clearly shows the subject is notable. SSSB (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with the reasons given above. Though the article is brief, there is certainly notability to be found from the sources. If anything the article requires expanding. --Formulaonewiki (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This rivalry has been the subject of a number of documentaries. See, e.g., here. It's one of the most prominent rivalries of F1 history and sources for it are very easy to obtain. FOARP (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Artscape (organisation)[edit]

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

Delete Notability is not inherited and while some of the exhibitions and artists garnered publicity and write-ups, there is not enough in the references to establish this organization as meeting the criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By way of clarification, just about all of the references I can locate talk about the artists, works and exhibitions. They do not talk about the topic of this article which is the Artscape organization. The article fails because the references mainly fail WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTINHERIT is an essay. What do notable organizations do? Notable things. Is the nominator actually asserting that all of those sources demonstrate that the individual exhibits are notable, but the organization that put all of them on is not? UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected you didn't have a proper understanding of the criteria for establishing the notability of organizations when you moved this rejected draft into main space. Yes - that is exactly correct. The individual exhibitions may meet the criteria for notability if they meet the criteria, but that notability is not passed onto the organization. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure I do understand WP:NOTINHERIT (since I wrote it), and the criteria. One whose last 3 2 AfD noms. were closed as Keep or No consensus might reexamine his or her own understanding of the criteria. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, well cool that you wrote that, kudos! Since you wrote it, perhaps you can help me understand if I'm misinterpreting it - it appears to support exactly what I've said? Also, you're wrong about the last 3 AfDs - the last 3 AfD noms all returned Delete and of the last 200 AfD noms I've !voted on, 85% agreed with the end result (whereas you're running at 76.4%). But lets try to keep this less personal and assume good faith. Apologies for my less-than-friendly remark earlier. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I corrected my miscount above. You are misinterpreting the essay whenever you cite it as a reason for deletion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your "miscount" is still wrong. Your re-assertion of my alleged misinterpretation provides no explanation whatsoever. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, are you sure about that, UnitedStatesian? I mean, for instance, a painter such as Van Gogh is distinctly notable but the venues where he exhbibited his art not necessarily so. Moving on to a contemprary and possibly greater artist, how about Jeff Koons and the organisation that puts them up? Of the latter I've heard not a pip. (And, yes, on comparative artistic value I'm joking.) -The Gnome (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I am asserting. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with user UnitedStatesians assertions about WP:NOTINHERIT.BabbaQ (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NORG; sources are primary, passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see sources in English language books [7][8] without getting into Swedish ones, and can therefore assume that it is notable. And as pointed out already, the rationale for the AfD is faulty, coverage what the organisation do counts. Hzh (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It doesn't in many cases. For example, an organization that provides teachers to underdeveloped regions might well rely on references that discuss the work that happens in those regions. But an organization, say, for large open-air concerts does not gain notability from the publicity surrounding said concerts (especially if there is only a mere byline "Company XXX Organizer" available in the promotional material). That is the case here. For example, this article about street art merely states "Behind the project is Artscape, the Urban Art Organization" and at the end of the article states "Artscape is an ideal association that last year made Sweden's first international street festival ever.". The reference is mainly discussing the artists and the various pieces - this type of reference does not meet the criteria for establishing notability as it fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTINHERIT is an essay, not policy. There is enough in the references to verify the activity of the organization (that they are behind these projects, which are then described in greater detail). ParticipantObserver (talk) 19:21, 26 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. Sandstein 13:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Barracks of High Command[edit]

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

No sources found and no indication of notability Mccapra (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup. There are several instances cited of use of this term in Chinese history, showing notability, but the original editor has neglected to properly cite the article. Thus there is no valid, policy-based reason to delete. (s) User:Buckshot06
Comment Buckshot06 the reason for bringing this to AfD is that it has no sources. If you’ve found sources that’s great. Could you add them in? The reason for nominating this was that I couldn’t find any, but I can’t read Chinese, so if there are Chinese sources I won’t be able to find them. Mccapra (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not cleanup. You can consult a Chinese speaker on WikiProject China in place of nominating for deletion. Excelse (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at all. Sammartinlai (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Apart from the nom, none of the "keep" or "delete" !votes are policy-based. Relisting to generate more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found two sources through google and added them (I have not searched JSTOR or other academic databases, so there may well be more sources). Both the sources I found have the exact wording of the lead sentence - as they post-date this article, I think they have probably used Wikipedia as a source for an explanation of the Chinese term 'Xing Yuan', as various Xing Yuan (named by place) are mentioned in the articles. I have also tried searching google for "Xing Yuan", but as it can also be a name, a combination of two words, etc, it is not easy. The term does appear to be important in the history of China in this period (though whether it would make more sense to have the Chinese title Xing Yuan or the English meaning of it, I am not sure). Re the orphan status of this article - the article about the four-star army general mentioned would seem an obvious place to have a link - but that article does not seem to mention his status or title of "Director of Mobile Barracks of the Chairman of the National Government Office at Chungking". That article is not well referenced either, and both articles would benefit from attention from someone who is familiar with modern Chinese history and who can read Chinese. Another possibility for links to this article might be one of the articles linked from Republic_of_China_(1912–1949)#Military, but again, it needs someone who knows what they are writing about. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a fair amount of tertiary sources that provide the origin and historical context of this administrative classification, e.g. [9][10][11][12], and much more historical writing about the stories of particular Xing Yuans, most notably the Beiping Xing Yuan, e.g.[13]. I echo comments above that AFD is not cleanup. Deryck C. 19:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hair Peace Salon[edit]

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

While I believe this article is WP:A7 material I'll start a discussion in respect for the massive amount of work User:Pr12402 has devoted to it. This article is a massive wall of text, documenting every inconsequential detail of the band's existence which successfully shows that it does not satisfy WP:NMUSIC. A load of contests they didn't win, album s & EPs which didn't make an impact on the charts. I can't evaluate the Belarussian or Russian sources but, given the obsessive level of detail in the article, I suspect they're not of much consequence either. Cabayi (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article might just overwhelm our process here -- a supremely excessive 296 references and most are in other languages. We may need someone who can evaluate the quality of a massive amount of Russian and Belarussian sources. Via Google Translate, I attempted to spot-check a few of the sources that are currently in the article. A few turn out to be fairly in-depth musical journalism pieces, including those currently at footnotes #17, 164, 189. But many others appear to be WP:ROUTINE listings of gigs, and there are lots and lots of inconsequential social media posts and retail/streaming entries. My admittedly weak spot-checking effort reveals that the band seems to have gotten some press in their country, but their impact on even a small Belarussian rock scene seems fleeting. If the article is kept, it must be severely reduced by a good 90% at least. I bet not even the band's fans have enough patience for this level of anal-retentive detail. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As this article is overwhelming it is easy to lose track of the important references that are valuable and demonstrate the reason why this article should exist (and I totally agree that cropping it to a smaller size would be an improvement in quality and readability). I would not say that I have read them all (actually I kept reading them just till I convinced myself deletion would be too hasty). Of these nr. #158 seemed for me to be the most important one not to support deletion as creators of a compilation albom considered their specific song to be one of the best pieces there, which would make a question about deletion a queston of the value of that portal (which is a portal of a radio station Tuzin.fm, which seems to be one of the major evaluators of the hits in Belarus music) . - Melilac (talk) 06:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I testify that the discussed article is not a WP:A7 material, as Cabayi put a notion without being able to become acquainted with the actual sources. According to the criteria for musicians and ensembles from WP:NMUSIC, at least the checkboxes #1, #7, #11, #12 are ticked off for the band. Actually, the band got 1st or 2nd places almost in every contest the band participated. This has been initially put into words in phrases like "successfully participated", nonetheless due that objection the text has been slightly expanded with information about actual laureate places, prizes as winners, and contest stages won (that caused an increase in the article size was being objected by doomsdayer520, although). What it comes to sales charts, speaking to whom it may concern, there were and are no music charts in Belarus. Given the credit to a high volume of piracy, followed by the wide spread of the mp3 format in the 00s, the music in Belarus, like in other countries of the CIS, is pirated or just streamed and shared for free via VK and some other SNS – until the most recent years the article in not about, there were not many legal options to buy records, while the punishment for illegal downloads was and still pathetic. On top of that, the band distributed and distributes its releases for free, so this objective point in not applicable (of course, there were a single split-album with the Jitters band they kind of merged with on West Records released in 2008, where no sales were counted in public nevertheless, some participations in CD compilations under the Tuzin.fm, Euroradio.fm, Budzma Belarusians! umbrella made for sending over radio stations and to preserve the Belarusian language and culture with no commercial goals). As the band stated in the interview printed in the volume #98 of the 我爱摇滚乐 (Chinese: So Rock!) magazine, it’s almost impossible for Belarusian rock bands to live on earnings from the sales of records and performances, even with a large number of fans. Concerning national coverage, the band was non-trivial covered by the biggest general news portals (tut.by, naviny.by (BelaPAN), Euroradio.fm, interfax.by, and more), was the main actor, guest, and performer on shows and programs of almost every TV channel in the country (Belarus-1, LAD (now is known as Belarus-2), CTV, tut.by (online-TV), and more), got broadly covered by thematic musical web-portals (Tuzin.fm, experty.by (now its site is "frozen"), another.by ("frozen"), "Pamyarkovny Guk" (p-guk.org – closed), xlam.by (domain was being sold), LiveSound.by (closed), Ultra-Music.com, and more). Its music was and is in the rotation of every radio station in the republic (I'm having difficulties to proof that notion in words – I suggest just to listen to them within a day) in addition to visiting them on-air ("Stalitsa" of the NSTRCB, Unistar, and more). In the time when Muzykalnaya Gazeta was being published, the band was presented on its pages more than multiple times, stories about the subject of the article were printed in BelGazeta, Sovetskaya Belorussiya – Belarus' Segodnya too, to name a few. An internet access was a luxury in Belarus until the end of 00s and even beyond, so there is some lack of information and valid sources about the early years of the band, while some good sources mentioned above are not online now due stopped paying for web-hosting by owners that caused the inability to put an even higher number of coveted reliable references from them that was not mirrored by the Wayback Machine facilities at the time. What highlighted Melilac (the importance of Tuzin.fm sources), it is lightly visible by googling (https://www.google.com/search?q=Hair+Peace+Salon+site:http://mpby.ru&client=safari&rls=en&ei=FE8NXLunG4SvswG-s7jwAw&start=20&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwi7gaefoZPfAhWE1ywKHb4ZDj4Q8tMDCGo&biw=1679&bih=865). There are over 30 publications from about 2006 to 2012 (the year when the portal "got scratched" due relocation on new server facilities and changing of user interface), as it may be witnessed, 90% of them are not used in the actual article yet (that is just when digging into one source was kindly recommended to expand upon)! I will strive to elaborate upon that, as well as to put more TV coverage ASAP, mostly on a weekly basis. Please keep that discussion on the article talk page ongoing. Due to a pretty large amount of sources that have to be diligent converted into references and a lack of WikiProject Belarus active members, it can't be done overnight. So everyone is welcomed to participate in putting more verified sources and making the article more streamlined itself eventually, as all high profile references will be put there. - pr12402

300 references already and more to come?!?!? WP:TOOMUCH. Cabayi (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For the folks working on the article, I recommend reading WP:ROUTINE and WP:OVERKILL (especially the "Notability bomb" section). Above, I noted that some of the references in the article are legitimate journalistic accounts of the band. That's all the article really needs. But you also have dozens and dozens of "routine" sources listing the band as being present at some event or noting that their song was played somewhere and what not. Most tiny tidbits of info on anybody are not notable just because they were documented somewhere. There may be a New York Times article telling us what John Lennon ate for breakfast on July 11, 1975 because he spoke to a journalist that day, but his English muffin is not a fact that needs to be in an encyclopedia just because there is a source to support it. Your article on this band is an unreadable attempt to promote them by overwhelming the reader with non-notable facts that happen to have sources. At least 90% of the article's text is useless trivia and should be eliminated, along with the sources that support it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This appears to be the first actual vote. Based on my two comments above, the article could be kept because the band has attained some basic notability in their country. But if the article is kept, it must be reduced significantly to eliminate all the non-notable trivia and link-bombing. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems worth keeping the page due to their notability in their country, but as has been mentioned, some significant trimming of the sources is required. In the beginning of the 'Break-Up' section of the article there is 35 sources all lined up on a single piece of information. Keep but heavily cut down the sources, at the very least for the sake of readability. DeniedClub ^{❯❯❯ talk?} 11:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - DeniedClub, thank you for the assessment. This big row of 35 sources has been cut to 5. It's done. - pr12402

Comment:. I admit that the article contains insignificant facts. But this is an occasion to improve and refine the article, and not to delete it. You should rely on such authoritative sources in the field of Belarusian music as "experty.by" or "Muzykalnaya Gazeta". Such sources attach importance to the subject of the article. Vit Koz (talk) 07:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:19, 20 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. Small consensus that whilst the competition might become notable once it has actually begun, insufficient sources currently exist to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

US Arena Professional Soccer League[edit]

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

This appears to be both WP:TOOSOON and WP:PROMO from an account with a pretty clear (from user name) WP:COI issue. No references or sourcing, links on the org's page show only a few local stories about a non existent 4 team one state group that can't even afford places to practice. JamesG5 (talk) 05:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just looked at the user's contributions and they've been around since 2008 making various indoor soccer related edits. I don't think there's necessarily a COI here. Jay eyem (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't technically !vote last time, but after some searching for the league I only really found this link, and I don't think that's enough to meet WP:GNG. Don't agree with the nominator's rationale, but agree that deletion is the right choice. Jay eyem (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jay eyem Spiderone 18:05, 24 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Éternel[edit]

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

Notability not established. There are a lot of citations, but most are to the band's own website, or to other self-published sources. Other citations are to sources published by associated companies such as the band's record label, publisher and recording studio, which are owned by the band's only current member. The book cited is merely a directory, listing the band alongside many others with no analysis (see Talk:Vision Éternel#Self-published sources for details and evidence). Most if not all of the interviews are from self-published fan sites. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation "biography" appears to have been a simple directory entry. The article has also seen a good deal of attention from a lot of CoI and SPA editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I have previously been accused of having a CoI with regard to this article, by one of the people who has edited it. The accusation was, of course, baseless. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting user filelakeshoe for his input as well since he seems to have disagreed with Andy's last suggestion to delete this article in September 2017.
The article has been improved by several users (including myself) since the above mention suggesting deletion, and many of the issues that Andy has pointed out and assigned templates for have been fixed. There are still things that need fixing, but this is no cause for deletion in my opinion. The article also links to many of its related bands which have been on Wikipedia for quite some time.
Does anyone actually own the book by D'Halleine that Andy makes reference to in the article's talk page? His link in the talk page only shows a preview on Google Books, but there seems to be a printed paperback edition as well, according to Amazon.
WikiGuruWanaB; talk to WikiGuruWanaB 7:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- So now you're canvassing, both here and on filelakeshoe's talk page. The article may have been improved (I've done a lot of that work, before learning that so many of the sources cited are not independent), but quality is not the reason I've nominated it for deletion. The 2017 discussion to which you link is not a deletion proposal, but a report of a CoI issue. The paperback of D'Halleine's book is published by Lulu.com - a vanity press. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The David D'Halleine book is actually directly searchable on Google Books. All it contains about Vision Éternel is a directory list of their social networking URLs, not substantive content about the band. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nominators reasons. Vanity article created by an editor who claims to be the principal member of the group [14] and subsequently maintained by a SPA Lyndaship (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nominator is correct. This article is indeed informative with a lot of references to back it up, but it is like a towering skyscraper built on sand. Almost every source backing up a substantive point is self-published from the band's own website or related items. Independent coverage from sources like AllMusic are either dead links or routine listings of the band's basic existence. This article is an elaborate self-written biography of a band that must wait for someone else to notice their existence before they qualify for Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was obviously created by somebody who (wrongly) thought the key to Wikinotability was to get the number of references up as high as possible — but we call that reference bombing, and don't take kindly to it. Practically right across the board, the sources here are the band's own website and social media profiles, PR content from the band's own record label, routine directories like discogs.com and last.fm and Google Music and IMDb that don't support notability at all, and non-notable webzines — and they aren't the subject of the only two "reliable sources in theory" that I can see, because PopMatters just tangentially verifies a stray fact about one shortlived member being associated with a different band without mentioning this band at all in the process, and the David D'Halleine book (as I noted above) just contains a directory list of their social networking profiles rather than any substantive editorial content. Nominator is also correct about the "Artists" section of the CBC Music site — it was a section where artists with music available on the site were able to directly upload their own self-written EPK content about themselves, not a section that represented CBC staff doing journalism, so having had a profile on there is not a notability clincher just because it had "CBC" in the url. (And no, having had an artists profile on that site is not a priori proof that they ever got playlisted by the CBC Music network, so it doesn't automatically clinch the "playlisted by a national radio network" criterion either.) Notability is not extended under WP:NMUSIC to just any band whose existence can technically be verified on the web — the notability test is the extent to which they can be shown to be the subject of substantive coverage in reliable sources, but none of the sources here represent any such thing. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neither WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC are met, despite the number of citations. Above editors and nominator are correct: the band verifiably exists, but the numerous citations in the article are almost entirely PR/primary/routine. This has already consumed enough editor time, and it can go. Bakazaka (talk) 07:15, 27 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. RL0919 (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Only Fools and Horses DVD Collection[edit]

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

Non-notable DVD reissue collection. WP:NOTCATALOG. --wooden superman 10:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, and no evidence of notability found in a search. Fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 12:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted there is no evidence of notability. It is not unusual for a long running series to get a DVD/magazine series, and there does not seem to be anything special about this one. As well as this, the article reads more like promotional material than an encyclopedia entry. Dunarc (talk) 15:37, 27 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. RL0919 (talk) 07:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: The Definitive G1 Collection[edit]

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

Non-notable comic reissue collection. WP:NOTCATALOG. --wooden superman 10:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Only three sources and all are social media links. Ajf773 (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; not suitable for Wikipedia Spiderone 09:38, 22 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brig (C++ libraries)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. I'm not sure how exactly notability would be established for this (probably no one is writing news articles about open-source C++ libraries), but the only reference is a primary source. Jc86035 (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unknown library, repo seems to have died with google code, I can't find an alternative anywhere. In fact, I can't find anything about it at all. User seems to be trying to advertise their stuff, including some other "bark" library in their user space. Isa (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even notice that; the author's only 28 edits are to this article and their sandboxes, and almost no one else has ever edited the article. It definitely looks like advertising. Jc86035 (talk) 07:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NOTMANUAL, WP:V, WP:N, choose any three. Bakazaka (talk) 23:04, 27 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quark XML Author[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable software per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 07:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of a vast slew of XML tools around this time. Neither market share nor technical innovation would confer notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator's rationale. A really paranoid android (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable text editor. Kraose (talk) 16:23, 25 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of photographs by John Thomas[edit]

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

A WP:NOT violation; this should be a category on Wikimedia Commons and not an encyclopedia article. None of the photographs appear to be independently notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I ping the following users, as they have contributed to the article: @Martinevans123, Rodw, and Verbcatcher:

Nothing in either WP:NOT or WP:STANDALONE is violated.

Indeed, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists mentions that lists of works are quite acceptable: Chronological lists, including all timelines and lists of works, should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order. and When these elements are titles of works, they retain the original capitalization of the titles.. This list of works is in a sortable table, complies with the above, and it contains valuable text, it should remain on Wikipedia. As for notability, the images do support the reader's understanding of a notable topic, namely early photography, and ordinary life c. 19c, (clothes, facial hair, state of buildings etc). I would defend to the hilt the fact that every photograph in the list is notable, and the collection is also seen as notable by many external sources.

This list also complies with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works, and in fact encouraged. This MoS states: The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A very useful article. A fitting complement to the article on John Thomas (photographer). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be just a random gallery of photographs with nothing noteworthy accompanying them conveying their importance to the subject. Fails WP:NOTGALLERY. Ajf773 (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though these aren't exactly random photos, but are photos in the collection of the National Library of Wales uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. They certainly seem to fail WP:NOTGALLERY, reproducing a collection in a specific library. Neither is the list particularly useful repeating, as it does, the external links and further reading from John Thomas (photographer). Anyone wanting to see the shared photos in the National Library of Wales collection can see [Category:Photographs by John Thomas]. Sionk (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite so easy to order any of the table subject columns with just a bare list. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTGALLERY. That isn't to say that a list of his photographs could never be encyclopedic, we would just have to be more selective and include independently sourced material indicating the importance of each photograph. TNT is needed here. Catrìona (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although a significant Welsh photographer, I'm afraid NOTGALLERY applies. Llwyld (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per delete votes above Spiderone 09:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I read: "The photographs listed here are from a selection of negatives that Thomas sold to Sir Owen Morgan Edwards that are now in the collection of the National Library of Wales." With this in mind, "List" puzzles me. Would it be unfair to retitle this article "Arbitrary collection of photographs by John Thomas"; and if so, why? -- Hoary (talk) 03:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The original donation by Edwards was of over 3,000 glass negatives. In 1928 it was intended that a complete catalogue would be published. But at the time of Woollen and Crawfords's 1977 book, that had still not been completed. There is a complete card index. There may be other negatives, of course, or even prints, not in the collection, but probably not very many. I believe this list is based on what was available at the time from the 2001 work to digitise the whole collection and make it available online. I think the current list has 2,554 entries? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 24 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 per WP:NOT and apparently lack of notability for the list as such. If anyone believes this content would be welcomed on another project, they can request a copy of the deleted wikicode from an administrator. RL0919 (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of stakes of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[edit]

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

per WP:NOTDIRECTORY - this is a directory of all LDS "stakes" (which seems roughly equivalent to Catholic parishes). power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. We should not delete this article because it is a good article and is being improved. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please show how it meets WP:GNG Spiderone 09:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created in 2009. Why are we discussing it now? Rathfelder (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIRECTORY WP:NOTLINKFARM and not even the least bit encyclopedic. Ajf773 (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but only this Wikipedia article. Granted, WP:NOTDIRECTORY WP:NOTLINKFARM but instead of the list being outright deleted from Wikimedia, why not consider other alternatives (sister projects for instance)? Ernestogon (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep stakes of the Church are major institutions within the Church and key to how it operates institutionally. Deletion of this list would destroy a very useful and insightful article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ajf773 Spiderone 09:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid encyclopedia topic of use for religious research, no valid reason for deletion except WP :IDONTLIKEIT Atlantic306 (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one has used "I don't like it" as a deletion argument Spiderone 10:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory and this entry is not encyclopedic. Citrivescence (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is valid encyclopedic topic of use for religious research. The problem is that it is very extensive and should be divided by continents. Irwin ^talk2me 23:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirito (talk • contribs) [reply]
Delete – After several source searches, the topic does not meet WP:LISTN, as it has not been discussed as a set or group in reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the topic. Also qualifies for deletion per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, as Wikipedia is not intended to be a directory of non-notable geographical groupings of an organization. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as violation of policy. Wikipedia is not meant to be a backup site or database clone of the LDS church directory, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY clearly says that Wikipedia is not for lists of (e.g.) "offices", "store locations", "subdivisions", etc. Readers can find this information at the LDS church site through Google, even without the dozens of external links in this article. Bakazaka (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTDIRECTORY -- RoySmith (talk) 03:52, 28 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of people by number of countries visited[edit]

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

WP:LISTCRUFT. This is a conglomeration of members of the Travelers' Century Club and various high-profile diplomats, and is fairly clearly incomplete. I admit that WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but I don't feel that an article on people who the TCC claims have visited 190+ countries could stand, and the version with a variety of diplomats is even worse than that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as editing can fix the issues. There are clearly more than 190 countries and more than one way to count places visited. The people who have reached the top of the major lists (TCC, MTP) should be listed. Trimming back to people that have articles and/or top the MTP list would be good. There is regular media coverage of extreme travel so the topic is encyclopedic. Legacypac (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't think there is any reliable method of knowing exactly how many countries a person has visited. Ajf773 (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "There are no official criteria of what constitutes a visit" and "there is great debate as to how many countries there are in the world"??? Could the criteria be any fuzzier? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User:Clarityfiend sums it up best. This list is too arbitrary, and is not encyclopedic. Ross Finlayson (talk) 16:43, 24 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. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dermophis donaldtrumpi[edit]

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

See its Talk page, this species isn't even formally registered yet nor formally published. To quote @Dyanega:: "Until it's formally published, the name has just as much validity as a "scientific name" as Chuck Jones' use of "Speedibus rex" as a "scientific name" in the Roadrunner cartoons. ".

The only sources are newspapers running the same story. I don't think this is sufficiently notable (yet), it's just conjecture of a name made for one scientist's gesture. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 03:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Completely non–policy based nomination: whether it's "formally registered" has nothing to do with anything, and by the way we do have an article on Speedibus rex. Notability abundantly established by independent stories (not "the same story") in Washington Post, Guardian, SF Chronicle, The Hill, USA Today (cited in the article) plus People, CNN, The Independent, Newsweek, BBC and many more. E Eng 04:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: The point of the "speddibus rex" part is that this Animal is, as far as it is empirically concerned, essentially an editorial joke fit for the 24 hour news cycle and, until the species is formally published as D. donaldtrumpi itself, completely worthless and this article fraudulent.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 04:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand notability. There's nothing to suggest it's a hoax, but even if it is it's a notable hoax. E Eng 04:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well with all due respect EEng, excuse my presumption but it seems from a quick glance of your userpage (which crashed my browser twice I may add), you have not much in the way of impartiality in this particular case. I feel you may be quite eager to see this article preserved even if it were a blatant "nothing-burger" - as a term you likely remember. I have no reason to care either way, but your vote of Speedy Keep suggests a lopsided haste to shut up this nomination. I never intended to call it a hoax per se, though I do believe that at the very least this article is still quite misleading. D. donaldtrumpi is not a species.-~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 05:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

<rolls eyes> If you knew anything about me you'd know I take my humor wherever I can get it -- see [15] -- and the fact that Donald Trump is the gift the keeps on giving along those lines is entirely his own doing. Anyway, do you have any policy-based arguments for deletion? E Eng 05:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may roll your weary eyes until they fall out, but if it is policy you're looking for, here I lay it out: WP:SPADE. This article is supported by yellow journalistic nonsense and lacks any true scientific support from a database or the like. Until it is formally published as a true species, and there is no 100% guarantee, I see no valid reason for this article's existence. Publish then create.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 05:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

<rolls eyes until they fall out> Better luck next time. E Eng 05:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being spiteful, or is this article that hilarious for you? The thing isn't even orange (har har har). The only way this article should exist UNTIL the species is registered independently, is if it is plainly and explicitly reported as a gaff by a soapboxing scientist.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 05:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you need to work to change WP:N. At this point I think you should have the last word. E Eng 05:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per EEng. No valid reason for deletion has been presented. It's clearly notable, it's well sourced, and it's accurate based on the best information currently available. Brad v🍁 04:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons as cited by E. I would also question the neutrality of the lead para. It implies that the auction to name the species was based on a false premise, and that there may not be a new species to name. The Guardian source says "The scientists who found the 10cm amphibian have agreed to use the name Dermophis donaldtrumpi when they officially publish the discovery in scientific literature." Note when, not if. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to wait for this ridiculous AfD to close before dealing with that kind of stuff. Statements like "it has yet to be confirmed as a new species" need to be sourced just like anything else, or they'll have to be removed. E Eng 05:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: "When not if" indeed! *When* this is a real species, the article should exist.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 05:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigehelmus, can you point to a precedent for that argument? It certainly isn't policy, and I don't recall ever seeing someone argue that at an AfD before. Brad v🍁 05:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bradv, no I don't know of a precedent for this, but what is the purpose of this article if it isn't even a real species? Why is it notable just because some newspapers reported a personal protest/joke/whatever? If so that would make a lot of weekday article stories like "Guy does X silly thing" notable in itself. What "is" D. donaldtrumpi right now?-~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 05:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigehelmus, it's an article about a species. The species already exists; we just weren't aware of it before now. Once enough sources write about it, we can write an article because of our notability guidelines. The idea that it has to be published in an official journal before it is notable appears to be a rule that you just made up. Brad v🍁 05:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bradv, I concede I'm not experienced with species articles but surely WP:RS calls for scholarly sources. Are there any other species sourced only by news articles?-~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 05:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigehelmus, WP:RS calls for reliable sources, which don't need to be scholarly. In this case there are hundreds of news articles from media all around the world which give us enough information to write an article. All we should do at this point is mention in the article that it has not yet been formally published, which is already mentioned in the first sentence. If it turns out that the species gets recognized by a different name, we would rename the article accordingly. Brad v🍁 06:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bradv Okay, you're right fair enough for now. Let this this be closed....-~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 06:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald L. Trump. wumbolo ^^^ 06:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the species itself is clearly real, and notable because of the coverage of the proposed name, whether or not that becomes its real name. Pinkbeast (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the species exists, the only thing missing is the peer review of the name. There isn't any reason for deletion --Joergens.mi (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, meets WP:GNG. SemiHypercube 12:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets GNG, no valid reason presented for deletion. Catrìona (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage for GNG.LM2000 (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The species is real and has been confirmed and complies with the GNG as well as the many sources Wkc19 :) (talk) 15:01, 20 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. RL0919 (talk) 07:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Betz[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Played a grand total of 11 ECHL games, which isn't close to showing notability. Holding some school records and being all-conference in college also fail to show notability. There's also no significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:47, 26 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) 07:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Scott (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage fails WP:GNG and playing 32 games in the AHL fails WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:25, 26 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 "keep" side does not make clear on which sources, if any, their argumants are based. Sandstein 19:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yisrael Ephraim Fischel Sofer[edit]

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

Draftify This article does not adequately summarize who this is or why they are of encyclopedic relevance, it's not ready for mainspace. Ethanpet113 (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a chief rabbi is certainly a mark of notability. Room for expansion, of course, as for all wiki articles.--Geewhiz (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete not every town chief rabbi is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete I'm not seeing enough coverage for GNG, at least in English, although there could be more written in Hebrew or Yiddish. Delete with no prejudice to recreating if Hebrew/Yiddish/offline sources are found that would give sufficient coverage. Being the rabbi in a town with a few thousand Jewish inhabitants isn't a guarantee of notability imho. Catrìona (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its a stub that needs to be expanded. He clearly received abundant coverage in reliable sources (all the while difficult to find English language sources) and the article explains what makes him notable. Strange nomination.brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Brewcrewer: Could you perhaps list some of these "reliable sources" that give "abundant coverage"? Catrìona (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment being the Chief Rabbi of a town with a current population of 12000 (and presumably a lower population in the 1800s) certainly doesn't inherently convey notability. The only claim of notability in the article would be for writing a notable book, but I find nothing about a book "Afsei Eretz" by this person either. If the keep voters can't link to (or at least describe in more detail) the sources they claim are "clearly" present, this will be deleted. This is not Chaim Sofer (also known as Hayyim ben Mordecai Ephraim Fischel Sofer), a different Hungarian rabbi with a similar name and similar lifetime (that person died 1886, the AfD subject died 1898). power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:57, 20 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 as WP:TOOSOON. RL0919 (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits Live Tour 2019[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Might be WP:TOOSOON. No sources other than unreliable sources and announcements found. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP: TOOSOON. As the article itself says, this tour is not scheduled to begin until April 2019. Vorbee (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 07:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as "anticipation of notability may be mistaken" (see WP:DELAY), and there's no guarantee that any of these announced events will happen. Bakazaka (talk) 07:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BoBo Fish Ball[edit]

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

Non-notable company lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, reads like a promotional article. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:37, 20 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 Closed, wrong forum. I considered fixing the nomination to make it a nomination for the article rather than the talk page, but the article, FIFA World Cup stadiums, passed an AfD with a "speedy keep" less than 6 months ago. If anyone wants to re-nominate the article here, they are free to do so. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:FIFA World Cup stadiums[edit]

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

Content has been copied off from every World Cup article, all this information is is basically a WP:CONTENTFORK from 1930 FIFA World Cup, 1934 FIFA World Cup and so on to current day, We already have all this information across all the World Cup articles. It doesn't make any sense to repeat all that information in one article when you can get exactly the same information on each world cup page. Govvy (talk) 02:00, 20 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 one "keep" comment has little weight because Google searches and business directories are not considered significant coverage to establish notability. RL0919 (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beckhoff group[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP Cabayi (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NCORP and certainly WP:SIGCOV. JC7V (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should not be deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is a major player in machine automation. [16]

Google search for "beckhoff automation" gives > 570.000 results [17] , search for B. and IoT > 180.000 [18] search for Beckhoff and Industry 4.0 well over 50.000 "industry+4.0" . [19] and [20] list as competitors FlexSim and Omron. [21] lists Beckhoff among such reputable companies as Bosch Rexroth, Sick_AG, Festo, Rockwell Automation, etc.. Anyone pretending he hasn't come across Beckhoff in the context in Europe would probably be derided. I'll leave it to the readers of my comment to muse about my impression. -- Kku (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in-depth independent coverage. A company may have widely-used products, and be mentioned in many trade publications, but in the absence of independent sources discussing the company itself directly in detail then it is not notable for the purpose of inclusion in this encyclopedia.--Pontificalibus 09:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Active in Style[edit]

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

I encountered this article in a random page patrol. It appears to be a retailer with no inherent notability, which is to say beyond passing mentions or likely paid promotions. It does not appear to have had any significant edits since it's inception, and appears to be written like an ad. Ethanpet113 (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:05, 20 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 Righteous Among the Nations by country. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Righteous Among the Nations[edit]

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

I am not sure what the purpose of the list is. There are only two entries and no possibility for expansion. Both items have a biographical article which duplicates the information in the list. Catrìona (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Righteous Among the Nations by country, where China already has a line and links to the two biographical articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above seems appropriate. May want to merge some of the "biography" information into the individual articles for Pan Junshun and Ho Feng-Shan as appropriate. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:25, 20 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 prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B4bonah[edit]

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

Sole claim to meeting WP:NMUSIC is "his single 'Dear God' which made up to the charts in Ghana" sourced to an article [22] which clearly states "This list is in no order", so it's obviously not "the charts". Cabayi (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the issue with the music chart as stated above. Correcting this, I have still maintained the link but changed the grammar to read precisely what the website is talking about, as the song is listed as top 10 Ghanaian songs as of 2017. However, I think when there is an issue like this, you don't need to immediately flag for deletion but rather place your concerns on the Article's Talk page Talk:B4bonah for discussion. Thank you Kwamevaughan (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kwamevaughan, One journalist's opinion is not "The Charts" which was the article's claim to passing WP:MUSICBIO. Cabayi (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 20 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. Two relists and commenters still do not agree on whether the coverage is sufficiently independent and significant. RL0919 (talk) 06:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Bros. Coffee[edit]

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

This is an article about an unremarkable coffee retailer. Its references are from Forbes which are expressly mentioned as insufficient to substantiate notability in the Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria the remaining are of a similar business journal and the companies website itself. Ethanpet113 (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You need to read more carefully what Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria says about Forbes: it only calls out non-paid "Contributors", but this source is by a paid member of Forbes' staff (a senior editor, in fact), and is subject to Forbes' independent editorial oversight. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:34, 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) 01:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, isnt the main question here: do they make a good cup o' joe? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~Keep~~ Delete The company has a respectable amount of third-party coverage but not much in terms of actual content. It's mainly about new stores opening or acts of charity/fundraising. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Sourcing is not quite good enough:

dutchbros.com not independent.
First Forbes article not reliable; is "contributor" article.
Conscious Branding not significant coverage, brief example in a book about branding.
Second Forbes article good source!
Portland business journal trade publications are not really good enough for notability, see WP:ORGIND
Small Business Smarts] not significant coverage, brief example in a book about small businesses.

The WP:ORGCRITE bar of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject is not met. If we find additional sources, we should reevaluate this. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I expanded it and the article seems now to have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 17:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the work improving the sourcing, @Hyperik! However, I am not entirely convinced these sources warrant a keep. Despite the large variety of sources, for the most part, the coverage seems borderline insignificant and the publications seem borderline reliable. Can you point to one or two sources that yield a definitive pass of WP:ORGCRITE? BenKuykendall (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Effort appreciated but content still doesn't explain why the company is actually notable. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 22:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Forbes article (source 9) and the entry in The Oregon Encyclopedia (source 17) should be enough to pass WP:ORG. – Teratix ₵ 06:22, 22 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. This survived in 2012, but the community is more skeptical about the independence and significance of WP:NORG coverage now, and two relists have not produced convincing sources. RL0919 (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Henderson Village[edit]

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

This tourist hotel appears to have gone out of business in 2014, the property was purchased and converted to a wedding venue under a different name and different management. See [23] and [24]. As a local wedding venue it almost definitely wouldn't merit an article, and almost zero of the current material would survive, except maybe a few numbers. See no reason to keep this, if the wedding venue has notability someone can recreate it. Krelnik (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Wikipedia is not a directory, it is irrelevant whether the resort is currently in business or not - what matters is whether it was notable when it was. I do find coverage (articles) in Newspapers.com, both within Georgia and in other states, and those articles mention other articles in magazines (which are not online), and also some awards. If the article is retained, it should be updated with that information and those references, and the date it closed. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did look in Newspapers.com myself WP:BEFORE nominating this. I would note that "Henderson Village" matches a number of other things that are not this business. When you go outside Georgia, you get even more false matches - a town in Illinois, a place in Florida and something in North Carolina, none of which relate to this. As an example, there was an unrelated mixed-use development in Alpharetta, Georgia that used this name. When you filter out all those false matches, what I find is a fairly trivial amount of coverage - hotel reviews, travel guides and the like. This is sort of thing that any business might garner, I don't see how it confers notability, but I do confess I've never worked on an article about a hotel or tourist site before so I'm not super-familiar with the notability rules here. --Krelnik (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't look to satisfy WP:NORG. Perhaps even more importantly, it doesn't look like any of the sources used are up to snuff according to that guideline, either, so there would be no material to retain. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:51, 20 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. RL0919 (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VR Bangers[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP and significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/LTMajorPayne with a history of what looks like promotional editing. Possible UPE, per unaddressed concerns on creator's Talk page: [25]. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seriously? Simply by clicking on the sources cited in the article I find a lot of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources such as VentureBeat, CNET and Vice. Obvious WP:GNG pass. feminist (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "non-trivial coverage in reliable sources" isn't the test for a reference to see if it meets the criteria for establishing notability - take a read of WP:NCORP, especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The VentureBeat reference looks to me like they've copied most of the information from the company website including a "statement" from the CEO and contains nothing that I can identify as original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The CNET reference recounts information provided by Daniel Abramovich (the CEO) and fails WP:ORGIND. The motherboard reference is based on a company announcement and quotations from company sources (dependent coverage), also failing WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  The authors of both the CNET and Motherboard (Vice) articles have provided their own opinion on the service, so it's more than a simple recount of company information. CNET: "Imagine a nice house where you're sitting in a chair and she's doing pretty much everything you can think of." Motherboard: "While it probably would be nice for patients to put on a VR headset and forget they're at a clinic, I had some very practical questions about the process. For example, if you can't see, how do you make sure the semen gets into the cup? Also, how are they going to keep the headset clean? USC Fertility didn't respond to two requests for comment." Same with the Maxim source cited in the article (which I did not look at when making my first comment): "Is virtual reality porn in a hotel room a good idea? Yes, for the people getting off to it. Not so much for housekeeping. We apologize in advance." A quick Google News search reveals many other RS, including Engadget and Digital Trends, both of which include the author's own opinion. I'm sure there is more coverage if I look. And WP:NCORP is largely based on WP:GNG, as it should be. feminist (talk) 08:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, no independent in-depth information on the company, references fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability established by several independent, relevant sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by LTMajorPayne (talk • contribs) 01:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: LTMajorPayne (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article creator and the above "keep" voter, Special:Contributions/LTMajorPayne, has been indef blocked by ArbCom. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some of this content could be perhaps soft redirected / merged to VR porn - if we had the article. The company, however, does seem to fail WP:CORP. Plus there is the issue of undisclosed paid editing. I was told that we will block and ban editors to discourage disruptive behavior even if it prevents them from making some other constructive editor, to drive home the point that disruptive behavior will be punished. Well, I think we should also drive this point home to spammers. Even if a company would be notable (and I am not saying this one is), deletion of their article, if they chose to advertise here through services of an undisclosed paid editor, is following the same logic as banning an editor who could and did create some fine content alongside of making disruptive edits. Just a thought. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:05, 27 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. "Notable for Boomplayer" does not make sense in terms of our inclusion guidelines. Sandstein 19:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oye Akideinde[edit]

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

written by now-banned promotional editor no evidencefor notability besides press releases . DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable for 360nobs and Boomplayer; he also has been discussed in several independent reliable source Mantosa (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oye was listed as one of Nigeria's most influential young Nigerian [see here], he is the Regional Director of Boomplayer Music, which has over 32 million users [see here] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantosa (talk • contribs) 05:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for Boomplayer Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable buisnessperson with no significant coverage in independent reliable soruces. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. When it is necessary to note that he is one of the 100 "influential" young Nigerians (they must have spread the net very wide, or the definition of "influential" is probably a bit loose), he is probably not that notable. The sources are either puff pieces or passing mentions. The article was created by an editor blocked for sock-puppetry in deletion discussion. Hzh (talk) 21:45, 26 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.