Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 December	23 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Race Relations (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary orphan dab page: hatnote on primary topic article does all that is needed. PamD 23:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am inclined to keep this disambiguation page so as to help clarify the difference between two different organisations of the same name but I can see that a hatnote on the two primary topic articles (already added) might be enough. As the author of the disambiguation page in question I am a bit biased though.--Discott (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick side question - if the article is deleted then where should the term (Institute of Race Relations) be pointed to? The South African Institution is older and better known in South Africa. I dont know the status of the other institute of the same name in the UK.--Discott (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PRECISION. There is only one organisation called the Institute of Race Relations, and that is the one in the UK. According to it's own website, the South African organisation is called the "South African Institute of Race Relations". According to WP:ATDAB we should be using such natural disambiguation to differentiate. See also WP:SMALLDETAILS, which bids us use the correct name as the primary title, and the small detail the country name in the proper title as a the reason to keep the correct name as title, not Dab. A hatnote rather than a dab is sufficient - SchroCat (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to discuss the article titles, we are discussing if the Dab page which links 2 orgs with similar name can be kept or not. --DBig Xrayᗙ 09:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With both articles at their correct titles, as they are now, there is no need for this disambiguation page (and nothing will link to it), because there is a hatnote on Institute of Race Relations pointing to the South African IRR. Naming of articles affects dab pages. PamD 11:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1. This is a pointless DAB that should never have been created. Two articles have very separate names, it is pointless to have a DAB when a hatnote is more helpful. (And when I made my comment, the UK organisation's page had been moved to something unnecessary: it is now back to where it should be, making this DAB even more redundant than it was before.) - SchroCat (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was the user who moved it back to where it should be. I agree with folks above that the hatnote is helpful here, but there is no requirement to make only 1 choice between the dab and the hatnote. The dab page can still exist. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it can doesn’t mean it should. It’s a pointless addition that aids no-one. - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This dab page won't help anyone: no-one will reach it, as the hatnote at Institute of Race Relations does not point to it. An orphan dab page like this does no good and is potentially problematic if there is a new article with the title Institute of Race Relations (foo) whose editor sensibly adds it to the existing hatnote but does not know about this dab page, does not edit it, and it then becomes incomplete. Just delete this unnecessary dab page. If anyone wants to argue that Institute of Race Relations should not be the article title for the UK body, ie that the UK body is not the Primary Topic of the term, then a Requested Move discussion would be the way to go. But at present people using that term to find the UK body get there directly; people wanting the SA body get there in one further click. The existence of an unnecessary disambiguation page helps no-one. PamD 16:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DAB is made redundant by the hatnote and currently serves no purpose. –dlthewave ☎ 21:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:2DABS. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:51, 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 11:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dianne Hiles[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP and unsuccessful political candidate, current two links were severely lacking and are now dead. Current article is an overt political candidate PROMO statement by a WP:SPA. While subject is an AM, the current article at least needs a complete rewrite and hence WP:TNT. WP:BEFORE shows the vast majority of coverage is routine political candidate election coverage and GNG is doubtful. Note a previous PROD declined without obvious reason. Aoziwe (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Aoziwe (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have edited the article to remove the out of date info and electioneering POV. Hiles has been a refugee advocate for many years before and after standing as a Greens candidate. I have updated one reference and added another source for her AM. I will look for and add more sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:ANYBIO #1 "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor." She is a Member of the Order of Australia. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have certainly effectively TNTed the article, thanks. Re ANYBIO, okay after the TNTing but given that there has been at least one other !vote of delete the AfD cannot be withdrawn. Please note that some of your new references, at least most of what I can get access to, seem to be minor mentions and are perhaps leaning towards WP:REFBOMBING. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I was aware the references were piling up, and I may do some more work on it, either to add more info from the sources, or to prune them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being inducted into the Order of Australia is a valid notability claim, and RebeccaGreen has done a very creditable job of Heymanning the writing tone and referencing up to a much more keepable standard than they displayed at the time of nomination. Bravo. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure if Member of the Order of Australia by itself alone is significant enough as an honour, but that honour together with sources having been improved on, and she may pass WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 10:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i think with OBEs a CBE is deemed to be the significant level so with OAs its probably Officer? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the Canadian equivalent, the Order of Canada, there's no rank-based cutoff as to when it counts as a notability claim and when it doesn't — the OC itself is considered a valid notability claim regardless of rank, and the only inclusion test beyond that is the ability to cite the article to some actual evidence of reliable source coverage. That is, we'll still delete an article about an OC member in the (unlikely but not impossible) event that the Order of Canada citation is the only source we can find for them, but if we can find reasonable evidence of them having received reliable source coverage in media for the work they did to get the honour, then we accept it as a notability claim even at the "member" level. National honour programs don't all work in the exact same way, and don't have exactly the same levels or the same qualifications to get named to them, so there's no one-size-fits-all notability approach that applies the same way to all of them — each country's wikicontingent needs to establish its own consensus about how notability works in relation to their own national honour system. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the UK is concerned, I don't think an OBE (Officer of the Order of the British Empire) is enough, for example, many in this list of people such as career diplomats don't really look notable to me - [1]. Same for those in the military (I'm not even sure of those in the military receiving a CBE). I can't state with great confidence whether this is the same with Australia, personally I would consider a superior honour to be notable. Hzh (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources here. The AM does not qualify for WP:ANYBIO #1, as has been established many, many times. (AO at least, but really AC.) Frickeg (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage of her doesn't really pass WP:GNG, there's a lot of synth and non-significant coverage in the article as it stands, with the only articles on her being the award and her candidacy. The candidacy articles don't really count, either. If the AM doesn't qualify for WP:ANYBIO, then she fails both the only possible SNG along with GNG. SportingFlyer talk 00:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question Where are the guidelines on which level of national awards constitutes "a well-known and significant award or honor"? Frickeg says that it "has been established many, many times" that AM does not qualify; Bearcat says that "there's no rank-based cutoff" with the Order of Canada. If there are guidelines beyond WP:ANYBIO, I would very much appreciate knowing where they are. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Every single time someone at AfD tries to say "the AM/OAM passes WP:ANYBIO!", it is established that no, actually, it really doesn't, since these awards are given to many many people, many of them worthy but not all of them notable. (In some cases, of course, the article is kept as it passes WP:GNG anyway.) There have been a few attempts at codifying this that have tended to founder, most recently here. Frickeg (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's any formal policy document that spells it out, because it's dependent on context. I can confirm that for the Order of Canada, we definitely don't have any comprehensive attempts happening to rush-job every new OC member into Wikipedia the moment the new induction announcements come out — but when an article about an OC member does happen, we check for whether they can be shown to pass WP:GNG or not rather than just automatically accepting the OC announcement itself as the magic notability maker for a person who doesn't have any other sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your replies. What I see at the Talk page you linked to, Frickeg, is that there is no agreed policy, and you said "This whole idea could use formalising because I for one am tired of having to argue that ANYBIO doesn't cover, say, the Medal of the Order of Australia or the Centenary Medal" - which suggests to me that other editors think that it does. And although my Keep vote was based on WP:ANYBIO, I have also provided other references, so it's up to others to decide if they are sufficient for WP:GNG. (I don't know why the candidacy article wouldn't count - News Corp, News.com.au's owner, is owned by Rupert Murdoch, and is most definitely independent of the Greens.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I consider candidacy announcements routine reporting when evaluating GNG, especially so in Australia, where the candidates are rarely independent of the parties they are running for (IE, you tend to vote for the party more than the individual candidate because the candidates tend not to have leeway on making policy as individuals, conscience votes and all that - obviously there are exceptions.) Identifying these sources as routine ties in with our unelected candidates not being presumptively notable guideline. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if there were other sources out there which haven't been considered yet. SportingFlyer talk 21:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with RebeccaGreen and per avove. BurmeseGod (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:GNG. I'm not familiar enough with the context of some of these claims to have a strong opinion. Uninvited Company 21:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep recipient of Order of Australia, passes GNG. MurielMary (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - AM is not an automatic marker of notability (at a quota of 340 awards per year it can hardly be considerd a "significant" award). Other coverage is routine or unreliable. Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:17, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noctambulous[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No awards, no national distribution, few reliable sources with reviews or coverage. Rogermx (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is sourced only to its own official site. Based on the talk page, the article was written by the movie's creator. A search for coverage in reliable sources literally turns up nothing. Fails notability in spades. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found one review. That's it. One. The reviewer liked the movie, but a single review is not nearly enough for WP:NFILM. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that site qualifies as a reliable source -- Whpq (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've searched quite thoroughly and I can't find anything that would cause this to pass WP:NFILM. It does sound like an interesting film, but I don't think that this is close to meeting any relevant notability guideline.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neil J. Walsh[edit]

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

I don’t think this person passes WP:BIO. The ref cited in the article is the only one I can find. Mccapra (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No viable third-party coverage found. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Subject is mentioned frequently in newspapers and magazines of the period, such as The New York Times and New York (magazine), which is not surprising given his role as the $1 a year Commissioner for Public Events, his involvement in the (American football) Giants leaving Yankee Stadium, the Democratic National Convention, etc, etc. Whether or not he's notable in Wikipedia terms is certainly worthy of discussion, but there are lots of sources out there. Bakazaka (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can actually write and source something much more substantive than this. I can largely only deep-scan for Canadian media coverage in his period of activity, so I can't actually evaluate whether or not he has a stronger notability claim than what little is actually stated about him here — but as written, this doesn't clinch anything by itself, and it takes more than just an obituary in the local newspaper to get a person over WP:GNG on "notable just because media coverage exists" grounds, and even the fact that the newspaper in question happens to be The New York Times still isn't a notability freebie that exempts him from actually having to have a stronger notability claim than just the existence of an obituary. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VertiKa[edit]

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

Website dead and no sources found on a Google search (many different companies share this names. Not notable. Mccapra (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NWEB. The website does appear dead and thus unlikely to ever achieve notability. Ifnord (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hermesianax (disambiguation)[edit]

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

WP:2DAB, a hatnote at Hermesianax will serve just fine, unnecessary disambig. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, there are only 2 valid disambiguation page entries here: Hermesianax and Hermesianax of Tralles. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:56, 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Sri Ayurveda[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. ∯WBG^converse 15:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader)~~ Art of Living Foundation and redirect. Not notable enough for a standalone article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think merging to Art of Living Foundation is better, because it was the foundation which established this company.--DreamLinker (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source for such claim will be appreciated. While it is clear that it is Ravi Shankar's company, the link with AOL are not clear. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP also notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The coverage is largely promotional in nature and based on the Notability of the Subject Ravi Shankar. --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not inherited Spiderone 10:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Art of Living Foundation. This company is part of the Art of Living Foundation. In this case, it is actually the collective foundation which is notable; the company individually is not notable. I think it best mentioned in that article. A couple of sentences would be good enough.--DreamLinker (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DreamLinker, do you have any link/evidence to back up your claim that the company is part of AOL. Please share thanks. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: It's there on the Art of Living website. I am unable to paste the link as it seems to be blacklisted. The format is [[website link]/in-en/art-living-and-ayurveda].--DreamLinker (talk)

OK, I found a better link. rediff. For instance, in 2002, when the Foundation launched a range of Ayurvedic products - everything from medicines to personal care products, under the Sri Sri Ayurveda brandname - volunteers across the world formed an informal direct selling network.--DreamLinker (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)DreamLinker, thank you for the kind reply. It is understandable why the link is blocked. I reviewed the link which says that the headquarter of this company is in Art of Living Foundation, So I am ok if other folks believe it should be redirected to AOL. User:Kashmiri would you like to revisit your merge target, please let us know. --DBig Xrayᗙ 14:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks :) — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, it appears that most AfD contributors believe this article is failing PROMO and I have to agree that there is hardly anything to merge here, accordingly I have not changed my !vote and it is still at delete. I have added a line at Art_of_Living_Foundation#Organization and I guess that is all that is needed --DBig Xrayᗙ 21:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks a case of WP:NOTPROMO. Fails NCORP. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:SIGCOV as most sources are routine announcements. As stated above notability is not inherited. JC7V (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, as subject fails WP:NCORP. -The Gnome (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wubba Wubba Wubba[edit]

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

This is a catchphrase that appeared in a single song 30 years ago and has no real independent noteability. This should either be redirected or redirected to the Sesame Street article. Jtrainor (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent notability. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not independently notable. And so obscure that redirect seems pointless, as anyone that knows the reference will know it relates to Sesame Street, so can just search Sesame Street. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - so obvious it should have been boldly redirected. Sergecross73 msg me 03:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a redirect to List of songs from Sesame Street doesn't seem necessary (and Monster in the Mirror is a redlink). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Aoba47 (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More appropriate for Oscar the Grouch's garbage can. Capt. Milokan (talk) 17:45, 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Farah Karimae[edit]

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

Borderline notability, fails WP:NACTOR. Article under an incorrect name since the real name Farah Karimaee has been salted as it was repeatedly recreated. An earlier deletion discussion, under a yet another spelling (Farah Karimi), ended in Delete. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:NACTOR and is WP:TOSOON. In my opinion we should wait for her to do some more notable work to warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. FitIndia ^Talk 20:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and salt; repeatedly being created and still not meeting NACTOR Spiderone 10:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet notable valereee (talk) 18:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt; not yet meeting NACTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and kindly sprinkle with salt so as to avoid time wasting in this already overloaded cleaning process. -The Gnome (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christmas and holiday season parades[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTLINKFARM. Directory of Christmas parades around the world and websites to them. Only a handful of them are notable. Ajf773 (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and also for covering an arbitrary time period: between Thanksgiving (American, not Canadian) and "early January". Clarityfiend (talk) 07:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename List of holiday parades and remove the arbitrary period restriction. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivia Spiderone 21:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTPURP, WP:CLN, and WP:ATD. Contra the nominator's claim, we have at least 19 notable entries for this list just judging from the corresponding category alone, Category:Christmas and holiday season parades. So there is obviously enough to support it as an index of articles, and whether the list should also contain nonnotable entries is a question for normal editing and discussion to address, and there has been no attempt to even discuss this on the list's talk page. In any event, we have no substantive complaint raised here that would call for deletion. postdlf (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per the last comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 13:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:LISTN. These parades can be quite a big deal as entire books are written about some of them, including:

Chicago's State Street Christmas Parade;
Tulsa Christmas Parade;
A Mile of Make-Believe: A History of the Eaton's Santa Claus Parade;
The Santa Claus Parade Story;
Christmas: Traditions and Legends;
Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade: A New York City Holiday Tradition.

Andrew D. (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources should be applied to individual articles, not a whole list of them. Ajf773 (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a valid educational encyclopedic topic with nineteen related articles and multiple reliable sources coverage such as the books listed above, no reason for deletion except WP:IDONTLIKEIT Atlantic306 (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is written like a directory hence my good reason to nominate it. Most of the notable articles are mentioned with greater detail here: Santa Claus parade#Notable parades. Ajf773 (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Holiday parades have been around so long that they are quite noteworthy in their own right.TH1980 (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parades are not notable just because they exist. Ajf773 (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with Atlantic306 BlueD954 (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon King Kanform[edit]

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

Bangladesh's league isn't considered a fully professional league as per WP:FPL, and only players who have played in a fully professional league are notable. Daiyusha (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. 21.colinthompson (talk) 18:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't played in a fully pro league or gained significant coverage Spiderone 11:23, 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 speedy deleted as an article about a commercial organization that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant (CSD A7). (non-admin closure) CoolSkittle (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imdad Logistics[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. I did a quick research but returned empty handed. This is a promotional and spam page and there is nothing that could be considered in-depth... Fails WP:NCORP and WP:LISTED. Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 / G11; corporate spam on a nn company. I requested such; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've speedied it as an obvious A7. Would someone independent please close this debate properly? Deb (talk) 10:57, 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. No consensus about where to redirect. A redirect can be editorially created. Sandstein 11:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amefurasshi[edit]

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

Fails on WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Not able to find any kind of in-depth coverage. Tried Google translate and Google Japan too. Few vague citations added by the article creator after they removed maintenance templates. WP:TOOSOON applies too as the group is just one month old. Hitro talk 16:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on notability, but if the article is to be removed, the title should probably be redirected to 3B Junior. Dekimasuよ! 03:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 3B Junior has been dissolved, so that won't be correct. And I personally think that a red link would be more useful, cause it would encourage someone to create the article in the future.
  By the way, right now the group is only one month old and hasn't released anything, so it was clearly too soon to create an article about it. I, personally, can't save this article now. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't mind redirecting the article to Stardust Promotion either. Dekimasuよ! 22:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dekimasu: I've just noticed that Bakazaka already said the group was a month old.
  But no, I don't think redirecting is a good idea in this case. I remember there were some prominent AKB48 members (for example, Mayu Watanabe) that were redirected and no one would recreate their articles for months or even years. Probably because the links were already blue. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 3B Junior. Hard to find a clearer case of WP:TOOSOON than this group, which just came into existence last month. Maybe they'll be notable in the future, in which case the edit history will be there, but until that happens the group does not merit its own article. Bakazaka (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:09, 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 Speedy delete as unambiguous copyright violation. Closing this page for procedure's sake. (non-admin closure) XOR'easter (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theory shells[edit]

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

An essay, and I do not see reliable sources. The creator first created this as an AfC draft, which has been rejected several times. Then they went ahead and created a main space article. Ymblanter (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyright violation. XOR'easter (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And, as a sub-topic of a sub-topic of debate competition, it would have an uphill climb to satisfy the standard of being worth a stand-alone article. XOR'easter (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I somehow was not able to find it myself. I nominated the article for speedy deletion but did not delete it since this would mean I am closing my own nomination.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 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. Sandstein 11:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parker House and Theory[edit]

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

The article has never known a reference in its 12+ years and reads like a promo piece. It's also about ten years out of date. The high point of their career appears to have been a Boston Music Award. Not enough. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: Completely devoid of reliable sources, complete failure to meet NMUSIC. Ravenswing 10:54, 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. Sandstein 11:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's read a book book[edit]

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

No references. Too little context to be able to verify after-the-fact. No indication of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~ as it seems to be the start of an article based on a section of a kowiki article [2]. Also seems to be one of about a half dozen recently created enwiki pages on Korean TV topics that could do with further incubation and/or attention. Bakazaka (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Delete after further investigation. This article and several other drafts were created by a student without the oversight of the instructor, and the class has now concluded. Very little will be lost if the article is simply deleted, and other drafts about more notable topics will still be around if the student wants to continue to edit the encyclopedia. Bakazaka (talk) 08:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards delete. This article has no references. The article says the program was abolished due to poor viewing figures, and then revived, but only kept for approximately three years. Vorbee (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy if the article creator agrees to that. This article was only created today and lacks some significant information that one would expect to find in an article about a TV series. If someone actually plans to improve it, it might be worth keeping after it is significantly improved. But if nobody plans to improve it, it should be deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of the article, I see the creator of the article has a name in red letters, meaning that the author of the article does not have a user page as yet.Vorbee (talk) 09:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That shouldn't affect the decision here. Neither User:Seoryoung nor any other editor is required to have a user page if they don't want one. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, but I want to know what the above Wikipedian means by "Userfy". Did this mean putting the article on the editor's user page? This would be difficult, in fact, not possible, if the editor does not have a user-page. Also, it would be difficult to leave messages on the talk page of the editor's user-page, meaning it would be difficult to see whether the article's creator agrees to any proposals discussed here. Vorbee (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Userfication. By "Userfy", I mean that the article could be moved to a subpage of the editor's userpage, that is, User:Seoryoung/Let's read a book book. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the kowiki link is enough for it to survive speedy deletion, but that article doesn't suggest that this segment is notable. No sources and the current article doesn't even establish context. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:40, 23 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. I will copy the deleted list text (not the leads, images, etc.) to userspace for User:Pi.1415926535 as requested. RL0919 (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of unused highways in California[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The parent list (List of unused highways in the United States ) to these lists was deleted recently per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of abandoned highways in the United States. The same logic applies here that the concept fails WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 06:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the lists above are deleted, {{Lists of unused highways by U.S. state}} and Category:Lists of unused highways in the United States should also be deleted as unneeded. Imzadi 1979 → 06:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous discussion (i.e., no WP:LISTN. FOARP (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per outcomes of previous discussions Spiderone 09:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Existence ≠ Notability. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Instances listed here aren't generally notable. Lists add little value and would be enormously unwieldy if you took them to their full extent with every ramp or road that has been rerouted. Bitmapped (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - As a roadgeek, I find these lists of unused roads to be really cool but in reality they are listcruft. Dough4872 18:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Mostly original research (google maps searches) and serves as not much more than listcruft. Ajf773 (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin: I don't have any real stake in whether these are deleted or not. However, I would appreciate if the California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts lists could be placed in my userspace - they would be useful background for me when I'm taking photos for Commons. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Catrìona (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all lists, but keep a List of ghost ramps in United States or similar general list with notable and well-covered examples (like the Portland ramps). Other content can be merged into their respective highway articles. Sounder Bruce 02:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I also checked [3][4] more carefully. These articles are full of WP:OR. Anatoliatheo (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as no evidence of notability and clearly Original Research. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 19:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per previous AFD of their parent lists. JC7V (talk) 20:14, 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. Sandstein 11:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Brady tornado[edit]

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

This tornado was a non-notable WP:Event. It caused no deaths, only two injuries, and damage was limited to trees, power lines, and a few farms. Dozens of tornadoes like this and worse occur every year. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This tornado is noteworthy because it moved northwest, not northeast, as most do.TH1980 (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't lend much notability to this event. If this were the only tornado on record to have moved westward it might be worthy of an article, but this is not unprecedented behavior; it's a minor idiosyncrasy. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as a non-notable WP:Event. If someone was so interested in the alternate directions some tornadoes move, they could create a list and include this there. Ifnord (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When a topic-knowledgeable editor argues that something in their wheelhouse is not notable, I am inclined to believe them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 29 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 I'm Goin' to Fight My Way Right Back to Carolina. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Spiess[edit]

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

Fails notability guideline. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to I'm Goin' to Fight My Way Right Back to Carolina - Jessie Spiess appears to have only been notable as writer of this song, per WP:1E the song is the true subject here. FOARP (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to I'm Goin' to Fight My Way Right Back to Carolina per FOARP. Really no content to merge as the the only additional information is the (non-notable) selected works. Ifnord (talk) 01:08, 29 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) 04:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusive Wicca Tradition[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and has no WP:RS, with little evidence that there are any independent, reliable sources on the subject Woodsy lesfem (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. Woodsy lesfem (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. I could find no IRS at all. Not even one to support a single due weight sentence in Wicca. 23:09, 22 December 2018 Aoziwe (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self promotion. Syed Zain Ul Abideen Bukhari (talk) 15:47, 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 merge to Carnegie Mellon University traditions. Sandstein 11:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carnegie Mellon University Alma Mater[edit]

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

Not meeting WP:GNG. No in-depth coverage in reliable and independent sources can be found. No indication of independent global notability. I tried multiple search terms to retrieve some kind of coverage, but failed to do so. Hitro talk 10:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I created this article is that CMU's alma mater does not have any page on it previously despite several of its peer institutions having them (i.e University of Pittsburgh, Cornell University, University of Pennsylvania, [[Bright College Years |Yale University]], University of California system, University of Florida, etc.). Some of these pages have fewer references than the CMU one. I oppose this article's deletion. Avatarfanx2 (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't see the case for a stand-alone article. the alma mater plays a critical role in the culture and history of Carnegie Mellon University seems to be unsourced puffery. Carnegie Mellon University traditions isn't a great article but probably could be a merge target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough information to justify a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Carnegie Mellon University traditions. "not enough information to justify a stand alone article" does not justify deletion - see WP:BEFORE. On the other hand, the proposed target in itself is far from certain to survive. The main issue is that the topic of the article is wholly unsourced (the primary source given is only relevant to the extraneous background included in the article). I suggest that the author provides some reliable secondary sourcing as matter of some urgency. Just Chilling (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. Suffers from WP:NOTLYRICS too. Almost all fight songs and alma maters are redirects to traditions pages. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:05, 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) 04:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Playbook[edit]

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

ad like, not notable ‑‑V.S.(C)(T) 08:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is very ad-like.TH1980 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing notability guidelines at WP:NWEB. Ifnord (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that subject passes WP:GNG at least. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Mars[edit]

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

A worthy part-time preacher, obviously a decent guy, but with no evidence, or claim, of notability. The sources I've checked have been focussed on his son Roland Mars, in which Harold gets a passing mention. Cabayi (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi, when you first nominated this article for deletion on December 9th, you gave as a reason: "Sourced by a newspaper article which can't be verified ("harold+mars"+site%3Aprovidencejournal.com) and by his son's obituary." In response to this comment I added eight new references, all of which are focused entirely on Harold Mars, not his son. I also pointed out on the talk page of the article that a simple Google search for "Harold Mars" and "Providence Journal" can't give any results, because the Providence Journal's archives are not available for free, and are thus not indexed by Google. In order to access the archives you would have to go to a library and access them through a database, or else go to the Journal's archive service and pay a fee. The bottom line is that there are nine references given in the article which prove his notability within the context of the state of Rhode Island, and of the Narragansett Indian Nation. Among other things for instance, he was a major source for a Berkeley anthropologist's book on New England native folklore; he is profiled extensively in the same anthropologist's book on the Narragansett people; there was a cover story on him in the Providence Journal's Sunday Magazine in 1986; and there is an exhibit about him in the Tomaquaq museum (the museum of the Narragansett Indian nation) currently on display. All of these references are given in the article as of December 9th. -Wwallacee (talk) 16:06, 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 02:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough sources in the article to meet WP:GNG, and more exist, including newspaper articles from 1969, 'Of People and Places: Providence and Newport', The Daily Mail, Hagerstown, Maryland, Friday, September 26, 1969 - Page 8 [5], 1972 - 'Gravesite sought for Aged Bones' [6], 1973 - 'Reburial in Rhode Island', The Boston Globe, Sunday, June 24, 1973 - Page 369-372 [7], 1978 - 'Pastor to talk as Indian Prophet', Democrat and Chronicle, Rochester, New York, Tuesday, January 03, 1978 - Page 12 [8]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources references added to the article and others detailed above so that WP:GNG is passed and the article certainly deserves to be included Atlantic306 (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEYMANN upgrade by User:Wwallacee.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:56, 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) 04:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Central Coast bus routes[edit]

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

Just a list of bus routes, no evidence of notability and fails WP:NOTTRAVEL WP:NOTDIR Ajf773 (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; absolutely no reason for keeping this article Spiderone 09:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find only one source which uses the term "Central Coast bus routes" [9], and one which uses "Central Coast bus services and travel routes" [10]. Does not meet WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable - neglible non routine sources available, not directory, not travel. Aoziwe (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails NOTDIR & GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 19:02, 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 redirect to 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Consensus on WP:CRYSTAL / WP:TOOSOON. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums[edit]

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

Too soon for a separate article from 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries - the article is mainly speculation based on a single recent press release. Arglebargle79 spun off this (as well as the candidates page) from that page and appears extremely upset by that last decision; there is no way a merge/redirect back would be noncontroversial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries or delete: There is no substantive content, and WP:CRYSTAL applies until more reliable sources are published that would make the subject deserving of its own article. ComplexRational (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, not enough to justify a separate article at this point. Mélencron (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. There is enough to justify an article, and it is NOT based on a "single press release." It in fact was a press conference by the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. As the DNC is the authorizing entity, it is entirely reliable. The organization process has officially started and the approximate schedule has been announced. No things are going to change, of course, and there's going to be lots of complaints and the like as there were the last few times, Gary Johnson, for example. I know, a call for deletion of EVERY article for events that have been scheduled in advance is par for the course, but for the love of Mike, leave the article here so we don't have to start over in three weeks....Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect still WP:TOOSOON for this one. A redirect will leave the history intact so you don't have to "start over" when the time comes, but I would strongly suggest asking on the talk page before arbitrarily reinstating it, if this were to pass as a redirect. SportingFlyer talk 07:31, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Envelope Collective[edit]

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

Not notable Mccapra (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete RS not available in article or search.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was able to find quite a bit of coverage from their Oberlin student paper, and a Wired article about one of the two collective members, but I don't think that either establishes N. Theredproject (talk) 04:25, 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.