Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 July	13 July >

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. Sandstein 12:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Horrorween[edit]

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

Non-notable film, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 23:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged with G4, recreation of an article that was voted as delete. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy declined by admin CactusWriter (talk · contribs). "article is substantially different from pre-release version in 2006 -- requires new AFD discussion"

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to save a revdel (I removed the one-line plot as copying https://books.google.com.au/books?id=8tvGBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA81), and Redirect to Joe Estevez. No evidence of critical coverage found (though surely there must be something in Fangoria?). The only point of minor interest appears to be that this contains a cameo by Donald Trump. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Something just feels off about this. I can't find any true evidence that anything other than a trailer was released. The website for the film itself is fairly lacking as well - it just has the trailer... and that's it. Other than what's listed in the trailer, there's no confirmation about the cast other than the IMDb page and let's face it - IMDb is insanely easy to fake. Warren Chaney is probably the best example of how IMDb can be gamed - even mainstream films aren't immune, as there was a case of a person adding herself to the cast of Captain America: Winter Soldier as She-Hulk without any proof that the casting was legit. We have no way of knowing exactly how most of the people appeared in the film, as some could be footage re-used from a TV show. To be honest, if not for this, along with the website and trailer, I'd probably assume that this was a hoax put on by the students who were making the 2006 movie. I think that at most this is a film that Estevez made or started working on that never saw the light of day for whatever reason. (It's a shame, it seems like it'd be prime Rifftrax material.) It's decidedly non-notable and there doesn't need to be more other than a mention of this in a list of his stuff since nothing other this being a movie he was working on at some point in time can be verified in any reasonable fashion. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also of note is that of the sourcing in the article, the first is a MySpace article that looks to have vanished due to the site revamping itself, a self-published blog that states that this is a web series that was filmed in episode format that has only limited information about the series, and a Fluge page that comes up as a dead link to me. If the movie was mentioned on the Today show, there should be more video out there of it, right? ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 03:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:NFILM. -The Gnome (talk) 08:22, 20 July 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. per WP:SKCRIT~1; nominator withdrawal. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 00:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Close[edit]

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

Subject is entirely non-notable, quick google search brings up nohting but the Wikipedia article and links to her pages RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 23:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am Withdrawing, @Ritchie333: is adding sources and fixing the article. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 00:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has had a number one chart hit on Parlophone Records. Easily satisfies WP:MUSICBIO criteria 2. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:53, 12 July 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 12:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Chad Caldwell[edit]

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

Subject is known only for one event, fails WP:GNG. See WP:NOTWHOSWHO Flat Out (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The clip may be notable (I doubt it) but that does not make Caldwell notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL. No. Just no. Bearian (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MILL Snowycats (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of WP:TOOSOON and subject failing WP:CREATIVE. And even WP:WEB. (On WP:YOUTUBE, we gotta wait.) -The Gnome (talk) 08:19, 20 July 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. Delete rather than merge - if there's no sources, it's not verifiable, and what are we doing merging unverifiable info into another article? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise.net[edit]

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

Article doesn't seem to meet tougher WP:NCORP requirements for multiple reliable sig-cov sources. There are some sources on vodafone/clearnet with small bits of paradise.net, but a BEFORE check couldn't pick out anything with decent Sig Cov.

I don't believe that the justification used in the original AfD (some 13 years ago) holds up today.

Its name does bring up a lot of noise, so I attempted to use additional terms to hunt something useful - if someone can find a couple of good sources I'll gladly withdraw

Nosebagbear (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 00:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 00:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 00:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect I think merge what you can from reliable sources and redirect it too Vodafone New Zealand who now owns what was left of the company. NZFC^(talk) 01:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and lacks RS Snowycats (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per User:NZ Footballs Conscience. Paradise was an NZ internet provider until it was taken over by Vodafone. Should be incorporated into either the TelstraClear or Vodafone#New Zealand articles. NealeFamily (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright since subject distinctly lacks independent notability. The dearth of sources makes it impossible to merge this text onto something else. We do not move infestations around; we confront them. -The Gnome (talk) 08:02, 20 July 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. done by User:Rmhermen. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rayge DeMarco[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Recreated article that has been previously deleted. No non-primary, reliable or notable sources listed. Only notability is one non-WP:BADCHART. Potential WP:AUTO. Lazz _R 20:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged with G4, recreation of an article that was voted as delete. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: no idea if this version is sufficiently different from the first one to qualify for G4, but completely fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ACTOR and WP:NSPORTS. Music career consists of non-notable songs released on non-notable labels and only charting on non-notable Spotify charts (the Dutch charts position appears to be completely fictional), and solely sourced to iTunes (which only proves the songs exist) and the subject's own social media. His hockey career was in a minor league, and also appears to be fictional, as he doesn't appear on the team roster for the years stated in the article and in the reference provided. His acting career is merely as a non-notable extra in a couple of movies. Richard3120 (talk) 01:55, 13 July 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 Dnata. Content can be merged from page history. ansh 666 07:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Travel Republic[edit]

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

Non-notable subsidiary of another company. Bold redirect undone. Can find no non-trivial coverage and almost all mentions are exactly that - mentions about being acquired by Dnata. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Firstly, a note that I was the AfC reviewer so I obviously have a interest in it being Keep, though hopefully I can still offer a justification . I should also note that I spent a good time considering it as being on the borderline, so I ran off the 85/15 principle of confirming it. This isn't that justification (too late in the day here - shall do tomorrow).

As an aside - apologies to CHRISSYMAD, I did write an edit summary but it didn't seem to have been retained when my page refreshed while confirming - apologies for any blank revert. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the parent company , Dnata World Travel and consider dredirectoing that as well, to the actual principal firm, Emirates Group. Not separately notable. DGG

Just to add for those confused "Dnata World Travel" is dnata, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the lede into dnata and then redirect, Don't really see a reason to outright delete - Lede is useful as is the redirect. –Davey2010^Talk 13:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the hierarchically nearest level of parent corporations. Subject devoid of independent notability. Cabin crew, crosscheck. -The Gnome (talk) 07:59, 20 July 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. ansh 666 07:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If You Give Me the Love I Want[edit]

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

Not a notable recording as outlined in WP:NALBUM. If there is a possibility to merge into a related article, that would be ok as well but it's not clear here. – TheGridExe (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and lacks RS Snowycats (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Guy-Manuel de Homem-Christo#Crydajam – Homem-Christo's article isn't particularly well sourced, but he's notable enough, and he's the only notable member of the group that produced this record. Richard3120 (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:NALBUM. -The Gnome (talk) 07:55, 20 July 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. Bad faith nomination. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 14:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sabar Koti[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No notable & Fails WP:MUSIC Act345 (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 19:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 19:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May I ask if you performed the WP:BEFORE checks? The article has 12 sources all reliable and most of them are independent of the subject, source #1 by United News of India has called him a Prominent Punjabi Sufi singer, #5 by Punjabi Tribune a sister project of The Tribune wrote ਪੰਜਾਬੀ ਗਾਇਕੀ ਦਾ ਇੱਕ ਹੋਰ ਅਜ਼ੀਮ ਗਾਇਕ ਰੁਖ਼ਸਤ ਹੋ ਗਿਆ। (Another great singer from the Punjabi music industry has passed away), #9 by Punjabi Tribune called him ਪ੍ਰਸਿੱਧ ਸੂਫ਼ੀ ਗਾਇਕ (a popular Sufi singer) etc. I believe is enough to support the general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 19:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources I can read (and the rudimentary translations provided by Google Translate for the rest) indicate that WP:GNG is met. A couple of them are press releases and there's one I can't access at all, but there's definitely sufficient coverage, especially from around the time of his death. I think WP:NMUSIC can probably be said to be met as well at this time (note that the previous AfD discussion was seven years ago and ended in a soft delete). --bonadea contributions talk 12:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bonadea; noting this discussion too. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room}

You guys must be interested to know why this article is even up for deletion? actually, the sole purpose to nominate this article for deletion was to take a revenge against me because I nominated Varun Sardesai for deletion a few days back which upset the nominator

. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

H'mmm thanks for the background GSS. @Bonadea: I wonder if WP:SKCRIT#2 a or b might apply (particulary 'a', as it seems to fall squarely within the parameters of "vexatious"); what say ye? —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I was wondering if it was something like that, given the spurious paid editing accusation, which really seemed to come out of nowhere. Yeah, sk might be appropriate - I wouldn't be comfortable closing it myself though, having !voted already. --bonadea contributions talk 14:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check. I'll ask for an outside opinion at AN. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. Sources mentioned in RS are reliable. Accesscrawl (talk) 14:30, 13 July 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. 331dot (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced wave[edit]

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

Related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mutual energy the first half of the article cover material elsewhere, but starting in section 4.4 Mutual Energy Theorem it become WP:OR based on the work of S Zhao which have very few citations. Salix alba (talk): 18:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to be "original" research on the merest technicality: it was published elsewhere but pretty much totally ignored. (Justifiably.) It's not science, and it's not notable non-science. XOR'easter (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same problems as with Mutual energy: lots of duplication of material better presented elsewhere, lots of OR, and fractured English makes it really hard to assess what (if anything) is salvageable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mostly incoherent gobbledegook. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Draft - Indeed from same barrel as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mutual_energy
The only reason I'm saying "Draft", instead of "Delete", is to provide the author with an uncomplicated path to save his work (which does appear to have taken some time to concoct). -- DexterPointy (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 00:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and do not draftify). To the extent that this is not just buzzword/equation salad, with classical references thrown in haphazardly to make it look important, it appears to be original research. Certainly it is not of any use to readers. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per XOR'easter --Steve (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is an interesting and thought-provoking topic. Vorbee (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of crap is interesting but also original research or fringe science as is this stuff. A notable, Nobel-award-wining paper would be possible, but this ain't it. I would fail a student who submitted this junk science. Bearian (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As perBearian. The content here is not what people often talk when discussing advanced potential solutions, it could be considered WP:BOLLOCKS.--MaoGo (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not draftify. Hoo boy. Apart from being original research, this is, as MaoGo said, utter and complete bollocks. The early sections contain (very) badly rehashed real science, and later ones contain fringe rubbish. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 20:04, 17 July 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) Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nasir Mahmood Khosa[edit]

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

other than being a former secretary and a grade 22 officer, nothing significant about the person Jibran1998 (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - firstly, the top tier of civil servants (e.g. permanent undersecretaries in the UK) are usually notable. With Nasir there is a massive amount of coverage on when he was nominated as caretaker chief minister, the objections to him and his recusal. E.g. Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Source 4 Nosebagbear (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 00:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 00:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pass basic GNG. Profile on Geo News. --Saqib (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Saqib and Nosebagbear. Both of them already have shown and mentioned enough news coverage about his notability. I am sure even more news coverage can be found, if one looks for it. Ngrewal1 (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - top tier officer. Easily passes basic WP:GNG test. Störm (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample coverage available. Clearly passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW query? - 5 straight keeps is usually the point where SNOW would seem a possibility, if some uninvolved figures might consider it Nosebagbear (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes basic WP:GNG and can move further Snowycats (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:39, 18 July 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 12:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JAMA Network Open[edit]

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

I may be entirely wrong here (not conversant with this criterion yet), but this appears not to satisfy WP:NJOURNALS. As far as I can see, this journal is not indexed in any selective database (and the LoC hasn't heard of it either, despite the infobox entry). Being a 2018 production it's neither "frequently cited" nor "historically important". Am I missing something? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 17:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 17:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nom has nailed it. WP:TOOSOON. Does not meet NJOurnals or GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Elmidae: too new for the usual criteria to apply. Basie (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON Snowycats (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Journal is young but appears to meet WP:GNG criteria through multiple media pickups of its content to date. Examples include NPR's Analysis Finds Geographic Overlap In Opioid Use And Trump Support In 2016 [[1]] and Time's Opioids Are Now Responsible for 1 in 5 Deaths Among Young Adults [[2]] (separate articles). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmxzptlk (talk • contribs) 01:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those media pickups mention articles published in the journal, but apart from an in-passing mention do not say anything about the journal itself. These mentions are encouraging signs that this journal maay in the future become notable, but for the moment this still is WP:TOOSOON. As an aside, I notice from your edit history that you basically only edit articles related to AMA journals. If you have a conflict of interest (or are paid for your contributions here), you should disclose that on your user page. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see that any deletionists have presented an argument that refers to policies or guidelines. Just links to essays. edit: Not quite - nearly all their "WP:" links were to essays; 0 linked to policy (WP:N is NOT linked to!); one guideline was linked to. Strongly suggests that the deletionists don't have one. I do see a veiled ad hominem attack (it's telling/consistent that this criticism is here rather than on the user's page.) "Thanks." --50.201.195.170 (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking off all commentary by blocked account. -The Gnome (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin 50.201.195.170 (talk · contribs) is the creator of the article. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 22:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, policies have been mentioned. You're free to ignore NJournals because it is an essay. In that case, you'll have to show that this meets WP:N, which is a guideline. To turn things around: you have not offered any policy or guidelines-based arguments to justify your "keep" !vote, which therefore is likely to be ignored by the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about soliciting some input from relevant FLOSS communities here? Odd that not one is among the half dozen that have been flagged. For fuck sake, I don't see that the user who created the page in mainspace*, Nstru, was even notified. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because we're not talking software here? And, as is completely proper, the article creator (you) was notified. Please, some WP:AGF here... --Randykitty (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Please improve your reading (comprehension) skills. Either they're a problem, and/or you're failing to AGF, and/or you're being dishonest. Reread: I don't see that the user who created the page in mainspace*, Nstru, was even notified. Reread my sentence with the PLURAL word "essays". Let's first look at the instructions the nominator should have followed, but didn't, shall we? From the instructions - Wikipedia:Guide to deletion:

First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.

Done? Nope, nope, Nope. Someone needs to be smacked for not following the instructions? FLOSS isn't 'just' about software. Hello, open content? Over and out. If Wikipedia:Guide to deletion had been followed, none of us would be here. This should be speedily kept and those instructions should be followed. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simmer down and stop the histrionics; this is just about the surest way to be ignored in one of these discussions. WP:NJOURNAL is what is generally being used to decide the notability of journals, and so it is here. And as noted above, WP:GNG is not being perceived as met either. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, instructions were followed. Nstru is not the person who created the article° (that was you), they were the editor who moved it to article space. As for AGF, what makes you think that the nom did not adhere to WP:BEFORE? They could have just added a bland statement "I did BEFORE and didn't find anything", but hardly anybody does so in these discussions. Of course, if you know of sources that discuss this publication in-depth, which are easy to find and should have turned up in a serious BEFORE, then you might ask the nom why they didn't see this, but so far you only come with angry comments that the article you created should not be deleted and that we're all being terribly unjust to you. And which "open content" community would you like to have been notified? I may be mistaken, but as far as I know, there is no delsort list in that area (even if the most important aspect of this journal would have been that it is OA-it isn't). Tyw7 sorted this in quite a diverse collection of subjects, so that a large number of independent editors are aware of this discussion. Please tone your comments down a bit. Rants like yours are wont to be ignored by the closer and are therefore not very effective. Instead, why not calmly tell us exactly how this article meets any notability guideline and we would indeed be done here. If you can't, stop throwing around aspersions on people's motives. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 19:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note Sorting into Washington because of editor's background. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 19:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a pretty standard failure to meet GNG or NJOURNALS due to lack of selective indexing and lack of secondary sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it's odd that members of an open source community are being so hostile toward an article on an open content journal that obviously has some useful content in it, contributed by multiple members, that certainly ought to be part of the article on a subject that certainly will, and probably does, meet WP:N, that they're willing to quote me out of context° (what a GREAT example of willful blindness!), ignore norms (policies & guidelines) regarding notification, etc. in order to steamroll a deletion. Odd indeed. I have no idea what the motives are. But it's sad. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are asking the nom to prove a negative (namely that there are no sources). As one arguing to "keep" this article you have the burden of proof by showing us sources that prove notability. As all you can do is throw accusations around (Nstru has been notified, the ping is directly above your comment), but fail to come with any policy-absed arguments (just some wikilawyering about how "the rules" were not followed), I conclude that such proof has not been found even by yourself. --Randykitty (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I see the message that you posted on Nstru's talk page. While a neutral message is perfectly fine, this one comes close to canvassing. --Randykitty (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Either my message was perfectly fine, or it was close to canvassing. Which is it? Stop with the intimidation. You demand I practice doublethink, put words in my mouth, and expect there will be no consequences. Not the way it works. Hopefually. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Past performance is not a GUARANTEE of future performance, but it's a damn good guide. I dug for a few minutes, and here's one strong indicator of current notability: Of "what the editors at HealthDay consider to be the most important developments in Pharmacy for June 2018" were four articles from JNO. This from a total of 58 articles, 37 of which were behind paywalls. [3] That's 19 percent of the open access articles.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please simmer down a little. Your tone seem to borderline being belligerent. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have gotten confused: I thought I read RK saying both that my message was perfectly fine, and that it was close to canvassing. It doesn't say that, reading it now. I blame the excessive personal judgements and demands, in part.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatantly fails notability. --Tarage (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utter fail of WP:N/WP:NJOURNALS. This is way, waaayyyy WP:TOOSOON. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 22:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So I spent some time searching around for anything about this new journal. The vast majority of sources mention this journal only in passing, along the lines of "such and such study was published in JAMA Network Open", or are of the "JAMA Network Open has been launched". The first type of source doesn't satisfy notability, it does not provide in depth coverage of the subject and the second type of source is the definition of WP:TOOSOON as mentioned by numerous editors. Blackmane (talk) 03:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and subsequent discussion, which only worsened subject's status. On this, there's a lesson here that is unfortunately going to be lost. -The Gnome (talk) 08:34, 20 July 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) Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oy vey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article consists of only etymological, usage, and similar information. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – “Oy vey” is not a dictionary term but rather an extremely popular phrase in Jewish/Yiddish/Germanic language translating into ““woe is me”. Which by the way, also has an article here on Wikipedia. Though it may not expand beyond its current “Stub” status. It is a phrase with Etymology connotations that expand beyond a simple dictionary term. Worst case scenario Redirect to Yiddish words used in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoessss (talk • contribs) 18:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect is certainly fine, but Woe is me is just a disambiguation page, none of whose targets are about the phrase itself. Moreover, the popularity of the phrase is more or less irrelevant to the state of the article. It may be possible that an encyclopedic article could be written about this, but in the 12 years or so since the previous nomination, it hasn't expanded beyond information that leaves it as a mere WP:DICDEF. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information in this article greatly exceeds what would appear in a dictionary entry. Most of the discussion of possible etymologies, equivalent phrases in other languages, and cultural significance would not be appropriate in Wiktionary, and would simply be deleted. Measured in kilobytes, this article contains eight times as much information as the corresponding Wiktionary entry, even after the nominator deleted the entire "popular culture" section. P Aculeius (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NOTDIC: "Note that dictionary entries and encyclopedia articles do not differ simply on grounds of length. An entry in an comprehensive dictionary (or a topical encyclopedic dictionary) would probably contain illustrative quotations for each listed meaning; etymologies; translations; inflections; links to related and derived terms; links to synonyms, antonyms, and homophones; a pronunciation guide in various dialects, including links to sound files; and usage notes; it could be very long indeed." The size of the article (especially a raw byte count) is irrelevant. The current state of the Wiktionary entry is irrelevant. This is a discussion about oy vey as an encyclopedia entry. In what way does this article discuss any sort of cultural significance in the way that, for example, the entry at Ain't does? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is more than what would be found in a dictionary. Tillerh11 (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How so? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Oy vey, how about putting OK up for deletion? Not a dictdef - entry is beyond that.Icewhiz (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Clarify this was a keep !vote.Icewhiz (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article at Okay is not a dictionary entry, while this one is. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Kpalion^(talk) 06:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- there are plenty of sources on line. ~~I really try to assume good faith, but this nomination is highly problematic in light of the zeitgesit.~~ Bearian (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources for what exactly? Can you share some before we take your word for it? Because, even after double checking, I just can't find much. Keep in mind, if this becomes a redirect, it can always be marked as an {{R with possibilities}}. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:38, 15 July 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 12:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Mixer[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO; the award ("Best newcomer") is not significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only assertion of notability is an unsourced claim of winning a non-notable award. No reliable sources to support WP:BASIC. No claim of passing WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to rising to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of any notability, Hasn't won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A BLP with no reliable sources and no reasonable assertion of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : subject fails WP:PORNBIO. -The Gnome (talk) 08:35, 20 July 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 12:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This Ain't Glee XXX[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NFILM and significant RS coverage not found. Awards are not significant. For AfDs on pages similar in scope, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not the Bradys XXX and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Ain't Charmed XXX. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of any notability, Fails NFILM & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Snowycats (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:NFILM. (There is no film in film any more so I'm just sayin'.) -The Gnome (talk) 08:39, 20 July 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 Dutch people#Arts. Sandstein 12:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dutch artists[edit]

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

Thus is neither a list of artists, nor a disambiguation page. It is hard to see what purpose, if any, it serves. RolandR (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a list article, and it serves its purpose by listing all the articles of people that meet the list inclusion criteria. I added dozens of blue links to the list of rappers. This article should be renamed list of Dutch rappers. There are already lists for List of Dutch musicians, List of Dutch singers, List of Dutch painters, and others. See Category:Lists of Dutch people by occupation for how many list like this there are. And there are list like this one for other nations as well of course. Dream Focus 18:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear what your suggestion is. Keep or Delete? -The Gnome (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this article originally had all Dutch musicians listed, but then most of the article got moved to its own article at List of Dutch musicians. Most of the rappers now on this list are not over there though, and there are enough of them to justify their own list here. Dream Focus 18:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
List of Dutch hip hop musicians already exist, so this list is totally pointless. Everything that was once on it or on it now belongs elsewhere. Dream Focus 18:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:LISTOFLISTS. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would be List of Dutch people. Dream Focus 14:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then it can redirect to List of Dutch people#Arts. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Dream Focus 20:09, 13 July 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 12:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merrick Hanna[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Its a typical run of the mill contestant on Americas got Talent. Most of the page is unsourced (like the family section) and other sources are very unreliable like instagram/facebook. Majority of editors are IPs and the majority of references are primary sources. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: 221.127.168.112 and other IPs seem to be in close relation with the article. AmericanAir88 (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO with possible COI issues. Snowycats (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a 13-year-old child. We need to have better sourcing than what is here to justify an article on a minor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and above comments. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:GNG. Is 13 years old too soon? No one can say for sure any more. -The Gnome (talk) 08:43, 20 July 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 12:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kettering Parkrun[edit]

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

I created this article earlier today but it's been redirected, I referenced to two local newspapers so it looks fine to me. The article has lots of potential to grow see similar pages Bushy Parkrun and Nonsuch Parkrun. Szzuk (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This event is non notable, local coverage is not significant coverage to prove notability. Ajf773 (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every local run is notable, and local newspapers covering it add nothing to such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect I tried to turn this into a redirect but it was reverted. Natureium (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Pack Lambert - Non notable race, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the list. Nothing of substance that would verify independent notability. A picture may be worth one thousand words but as a Wikisource it doesn't exactly cut it. -The Gnome (talk) 08:47, 20 July 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 12:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mansfield Parkrun[edit]

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

I created the article earlier today but its been redirected, I referenced it to local government and a local newspaper so it looks fine to me. The article has lots of potential to grow see similar pages Bushy Parkrun and Nonsuch Parkrun. Szzuk (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This event is non notable, local coverage is not significant coverage to prove notability. Ajf773 (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every parkrun is notable. We need something besides local coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect I turned this into a redirect and it was reverted. It does not meet GNG. Natureium (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Snowycats (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG. This is clearly only of local interest in anything we'd treat as a source. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 08:47, 20 July 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 Szczecin#Name and etymology. Sandstein 06:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of Szczecin[edit]

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

Since this one was moving back and forth to redirect and full-text article, let us determine whether it can exist as a standalone. I was first sceptical, but I see there are other articles like e.g. Etymology of Aberdeen. I will be happy to hear other opinions. Ymblanter (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comments: while I was filing in the Twinkle nomination another user reverted the article back to redirect. I nominated this page for speedy deletion, but after the first user commented this was not any more possible. This is why the nomination is an AfD and the target is a redirect. Sorry for this mess. Please note that we are still discussing the article, this is not at all my intention to delete the redirect.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC) UPD: Reverted to the article, it has now template and it is easier to discuss--Ymblanter (talk) 10:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I believe the Redirect is appropriate in that the “Etymology” is already covered nicely in the main article. If the section grows or becomes unwieldy it can always be broken out at that time. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is already what happens here, I think this is appropriate. Vorbee (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Existing redirect is fine. — JFG ^talk 11:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above Seraphim System ^(talk)

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 The Amazing Spider-Man issues. Sandstein 12:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go Down Swinging (comics)[edit]

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

Not a notable comic book storyline, fails WP:PLOT. See also WP:JUSTPLOT Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 13:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on The Amazing Spider-man - I am not sure this needs a standalone article. Vorbee (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 17:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 17:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. It is a good storyline featuring Red Goblin and featured Superior Octopus getting a clean slate. Plus, they have a page for "Dying Wish" on this website even though it had three issues to it. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an appropriate rationale for avoiding deletion. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 15:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to List of The Amazing Spider-Man issues. Argento Surfer (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as per Argento. It's a valid search term, but I'm not seeing any reliable coverage that goes beyond a routine review, or a publicity release. --Killer Moff (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Amazing Spider-Man issues per Argento Surfer. Aoba47 (talk) 15:56, 18 July 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. Nomination withdrawn. Misunderstanding re: notability criteria and transatlantic confusion over some terms. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 13:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rio Dyer[edit]

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

Fails WP:NRU. Plays for a team in appropriate league, but has not played in a championship series, which is criteria for rugby union notability. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 12:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Player has played 3 Pro14 games, as new itsrugby.co.uk reference states, have edited game statistics. Harriesss 14:00, 12 July 2018 (BST)

@Harriesss: I'm unfamiliar with the terminology used here. Is a "rugby competition" just a name for the league itself? If so I will withdraw this nomination. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 13:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Etzedek24: A "rugby competition" is basically a league or cup tournament. The Pro14 is the professional league for Irish, Scottish, Welsh clubs, while two Italian and South African teams play in the league as well. Therefore the article meets the criteria for WP:NRU. I only tend to create pages for Welsh players when they have made their Pro14 debut. Harriesss 14:23, 12 July 2018 (BST)

@Harriesss: I gotcha. I apologize for being an ignorant American! I will withdraw this nomination, thanks for clarifying. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 13:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:24, 12 July 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 Withdrawn nomination by OP (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 01:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy 2 (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Two entries, unnecessary disambiguation with a clear WP:PTOPIC. Galaxy 2 redirects to Super Mario Galaxy 2, while Galaxy 2 (satellite) redirects to Galaxy (satellite). A hatnote on Super Mario Galaxy 2 with a link to the series of satellites is sufficient, without a disambig page in between. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree delete, if there is only two entries in a disambig, one should be the common name (Especially, when one article doesn't exist). Hatnotes are fine for this purpose. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Galaxy 2 is a questionable redirect to SMG2, and there are at least two other meanings of "Galaxy 2". One is the Galaxy II handheld game by Epoch Co.; the other is "Samsung Galaxy 2" (which may be shorthand for certain models of phone/tablet?). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added Samsung Galaxy S II to the list. Newslinger (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. I should've thought to check if there are other Galaxy 2's (Galaxies 2?) out there. There are more than a few! Thanks everyone for participating. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 22:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:53, 13 July 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 12:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inmantec[edit]

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

Non-notable private institution. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources; there was a shooting there in 2015 but otherwise it seems to have escaped the notice of the press. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete per nom - Can't find any evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : It's a school! How dare you nominate a school for deletion? The wrath of the Schooligans will descend upon your head. -The Gnome (talk) 08:51, 20 July 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 12:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Dent[edit]

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

Non-notable author lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are examples of subjects work and some fail to mention article subject. Won a local award, but don't see that as enough to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – At this time. I have to say Ms. Dent is a prolific writer with articles in the Huffington Post – Washington Post and BET to name a few. However, cannot fine any 3 party – Independent – Reliable sources dealing with Ms. Dent specifically. I am sure, one day I will see an article here on Wikipedia with Ms. Dent as the subject. But sorry to say, she has not obtained the Notability yet to be included in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoessss (talk • contribs)
Delete – appears to clever bit of native advertising with corresponding lack of WP:COI if not WP:PAID disclosure by article creator. FlamesElite (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Contrary to what some believe, Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising. We really need to enforce this rule better.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and possible COI/Paid issues as outlined above. Snowycats (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ... and at long last we have a ... disclosure. Allow me to apologize for wasting everyone's time by contesting the speedy. I should have smelled this for what it was. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lilyscholz has now disclosed the paid editing and apologized to me by email. I was the one who originally contested the WP:CSD#A7 tagging, and I was feeling a bit taken advantage of when I wrote that snarky comment. I'm still not a fan of paid editing, disclosed or not, but of course Lilyscholz is now taking steps in the right direction. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The subject does meet WP:GNG criteria. She received significant coverage by reliable sources, independent of the subject in BRIDES magazine, WeddingBee, The Business Journals and WKBW-TV as well as in MTV.com, NY Daily News, Gawker and Hollywood Life for her blog Bieber Heiress. The article satisfies WP:NOTPROMOTION because it does not state any opinions and provides only sourced information; it does not self-promote because Dent did not write the article and it maintains a neutral point of view; and it does not advertise because mentions of companies are written objectively and sourced by reliable sources independent of the subject. I have now disclosed WP:PAID. This is my first paid contribution. I'm sorry for the omission; I did not understand the process for disclosure and have corrected my mistake. Though I have a WP:COI, I genuinely believe that Dent meets the notability requirements to warrant a Wikipedia page. The page has been edited and improved by other contributors since its nomination for deletion. If there are any concerns I have not addressed, please let me know how to improve the page. Lilyscholz (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject not meeting notability criteria. Aside from a few guest-posts in the WPost, we have primary sources, Justin Bieber websites, and unreliable sources in abundance, such as this. Well, it's just not there. (Apologies if my humble suggestion causes loss of income for anyone.) -The Gnome (talk) 08:59, 20 July 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 nomination withdrawn as per sources provided show article pass GNG. (non-admin closure) ^{Babymissfortune} 15:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bolick[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBASKETBALL. Sources provided only mentions him. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG per [4] [5] [6] [7]. Dammit_steve (talk) 11:15, 12 July 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 Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). Although I'll have to AfD that article as well because it, too, suffers form a severe case of cruft. Sandstein 20:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Violates WP:GAMEGUIDE, and doesn't contain any reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is not Wikia, this information is unencyclopedic. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Token WP:GAMECRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). Only a few of these have articles (or should!). The entire point of embedded lists of subtopical things is to allow coverage in concise form and discourage the creation of pointless micro-stubs on non-notables. The entries are sourced, and they really are limited to major items in gameplay (counting all the modules and books, a list of all named artifacts would be at least 1,000 items long). This list is reasonable, it just doesn't belong as a stand-alone article, because the main article is short, and the topic "major artifact[s] in D&D" isn't notable in and of itself, though it is discriminate (encyclopedic), not trivia. This seems comparable to other game/fiction stuff. D&D basically doesn't consist of anything but a few kinds of named game elements: key characters and fictional races, magic items like these, and fictional spells and abilities (or fictionalized reductions of real-world abilities into gameplay elements), plus some fictional places. That's not a tremendous amount of stuff, and our videogame coverage tends to be comparable; same with fiction franchises. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article Dungeons and Dragons. Vorbee (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Only 9 of them have links, and some of those are redirects. So not a valid list for Wikipedia. Dream Focus 19:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per SMcC. Same basic argument I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic of Dungeons & Dragons, except that in this case the more appropriate article title already exists as a separate article, so merge rather than outright keep. Not having checked I am not certain every item on the list is technically a magical item, and I'm a big believer in Wikipedia being not only verifiable but WP:TRUE, so the merge should probably be selective at first. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, breaking that table apart would be messy, and a bunch of them probably need to be removed because they are not major (entries sourced to novels, for instance, don't even necessarily "exist" in the game proper; R. A. Salvatore's novels don't generally come with game stats, even if some gamers might home-brew their own versions), rather than because they are not magical. My initial proposal would have made a merge near-impossible on its face. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:03, 18 July 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 entertained The Gnome's suggestion to draftify this as WP:TOOSOON, but the article has been around for ten years. That's a long time to wait for something to become notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gayle Kirschenbaum[edit]

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

Unambiguous advertising and not salvageable in its current form. Should have been speedied years ago. She has made one film that is potentially notable, but the subject herself fails WP:CREATIVE. One film does not a body of work make, Coretheapple (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve The article is badly written in an amateur way but multiple sources exist to show notability such as Variety, NYT, Newsday (not letting me access from Europe) and Times of Israel. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw those, they're all on the film. The film may be notable, but not Ms. Kirschenbaum or her mother for that matter. The existence of the film does not give rise to the need to turn a page of Wikipedia into a fansite or resume. She does not have a significant body of work and one film does not satisfy WP:CREATIVE. Coretheapple (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I think the film is most likely notable but notability is not inherited.Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify this for later, in order to either merge it into a notable film of his, or create an independent article altogether. As of yet, and I mean per sources, WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Seraphim System. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON as the reliable, independent references do not focus on the subject but the current project. Ifnord (talk) 13:11, 21 July 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 12:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EBricks Outlet[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. This company appears to be notable for one event: becaming the largest Lego distributor after winning an auction of more than 8 million parts in 2017. There is little coverage of this company outside of that one event, and that one event appears to have had no depth of coverage, per WP:COVERAGE, and no historical or widespread effect, per WP:LASTING. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meets WP:GNG and WP:COVERAGE guidelines after multiple sources have been cited and added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneEditADay (talk • contribs) 18:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC) OneEditADay (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional content and notable events have been added to meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:LASTING criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneEditADay (talk • contribs) 21:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A run-of-the-mill store with no indications of notability. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Most are based on announcements from the store with quotations from store personnel, are therefore not intellectually independent and fail WP:ORGIND. Equally, none provide any in-depth information on the company, failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:30, 13 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Professional Practices for Business Continuity Management[edit]

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

Non-notable stub Polyamorph (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 23:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 23:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This standard is published by an organization that's not notable enough to have its own article. The Ready.gov reference only briefly mentions it in a bulleted list. Newslinger (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Snowycats (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 16:29, 19 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anantara Bophut Koh Samui Resort[edit]

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

Article is unreferenced to RS and a BEFORE search finds only fleeting and WP:ROUTINE coverage Chetsford (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Of the first four GNews hits, two are clearly labelled as advertisements, and two look like they were sponsored. Not going to dig further -- anyone interested in keeping this would need to be clearly show it meets CORPDEPTH (106 rooms looks WP:RUNOFTHEMILL). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for this article to exist on Wikipedia, information is minimal and the amount of sources and references is unexceptable. Therefor I would also nominate this article to get deleted. -Yanjipy —Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really? WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No pass on WP:SNOW Snowycats (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:23, 19 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nadezhda Tereshchenko[edit]

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

No clear evidence of notability. Poorly written and poorly sourced - sources are either dead links or about other people. Main claims to notability seem to be based on family relationships, but notability is not inherited. A WP:BEFORE search turns up mostly mirrors of this page and little else of substance. Melcous (talk) 07:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 09:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 09:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 09:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Close to saying speedy A7 - nothing in the page indicates why she might be important. BEFORE doesn't bring much up in sources - A few passing mentions and not much else.Icewhiz (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The number of redlinks says a lot; and the blue-links are about who her friends were, but notability is not inherited. She seems completely NN to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete paart of a wealthy family, but that alone does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:25, 19 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Tereshchenko[edit]

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

Not notable. Article created by likely WP:COI editor who has been blocked for socking and disruptive editing. Puffery sourced mainly to non-WP:RS; main claim to fame seems to be family history, but notability is not inherited. Melcous (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - well, I do see some Youtube hits in English and Ukrainian. And a couple of news items that might mention her. But not nearly sufficient for WP:NMODEL.Icewhiz (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More about her family than herself, and an bit of self-promotion through "sources" like about.me, LinkedIn, imgur. ——Chalk19 (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, notability is not inherited. Tillerh11 (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thin sourcing, likely vanity/autobio. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:COI issues - lacks RS Snowycats (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self promotional vanity piece trying to make the subject seem more notable than they are. Mostly about their family and notability is not inherited. Combined with the pure vanity COI issues, it's a simple delete. Canterbury Tail talk 17:02, 18 July 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 20:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kuapay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An directory-like listing on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP.

Does not meet the new and improved WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. First AfD closed as "No consensus" in 2016, while sources offered there were not convincing. Eighteen months on, it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 紀海; 蔡余傑 (2017). 互聯網+大金融：新常態下的互聯網金融革命 (in Chinese). 崧博出版事業有限公司. p. 77. Retrieved 2018-06-26.
  The book provides two paragraphs of coverage of Kuapay and was published after the last AfD closed. That Kuapay received nontrivial coverage in a book strongly contributes to notability.
2. Sanchez, J.M. (2013-03-05). "Kuapay desembarca en España con su servicio de pago por móvil". ABC. Archived from the original on 2016-11-07. Retrieved 2016-11-07.
3. Díaz, Nicolás (2012-04-14). "Kuapay: La nueva billetera digital que llega a Chile". La Tercera. Archived from the original on 2016-11-07. Retrieved 2016-11-07.
4. Lapetra, Rubén J. (2012-02-29). "Ayuso (ex Tuenti) regresa con Kuapay para revolucionar el pago móvil". El Confidencial. Archived from the original on 2016-11-07. Retrieved 2016-11-07.
5. Sturm, Cony (2011-05-03). "Kuapay: El sistema de pago por celular que quiere debutar en Chile [FW Startups]". FayerWayer. Archived from the original on 2016-11-07. Retrieved 2016-11-07.
6. "Copec y Kuapay analizan exportar a Colombia y Perú pago de bencina vía celular". es:Diario Financiero. 2014-07-17. Archived from the original on 2016-11-07. Retrieved 2016-11-07.
7. Perez, Sarah (2013-06-05). "Mobile Wallet Kuapay Gets An Upgrade, Reaches 600 Locations Through Trials With KFC & Others". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2016-11-07. Retrieved 2016-11-07.
8. Perez, Sarah (2012-06-27). "Mobile Payments Startup Kuapay Grabs $4 Million Investment, Readies Global Expansion". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2016-11-07. Retrieved 2016-11-07.
  Sarah Perez is a staff writer for TechCrunch according to https://techcrunch.com/author/sarah-perez/, so the "non-staff 'contributors'" portion of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of dependent coverage about no "meaningful editorial oversight of the submitted content" does not apply.
9. González, Juan Carlos (2013-06-06). "Kuapay sigue avanzando en España y se alía con Telepizza". Xataka. Archived from the original on 2016-11-07. Retrieved 2016-11-07.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kuapay to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience says (my bolding):
The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.
Kuapay has received significant coverage in international reliable sources. It has received coverage in these countries:
1. Chile: La Tercera and es:Diario Financiero
2. Spain: ABC and El Confidencial
3. Taiwan (or China): 崧博出版事業有限公司
4. United States: TechCrunch
Cunard (talk) 05:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging some of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuapay participants who have not commented here: Tedder (talk · contribs), CNMall41 (talk · contribs), Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs), MB (talk · contribs), and Mystic Technocrat (talk · contribs). The users not pinged have commented here, are inactive, or have editing restrictions.
Cunard (talk) 05:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This company got a fair amount of coverage when it was active, though the same could be said for a lot of startups. This one appears to be inactive or closed now (website has been taken over by an unrelated blogger, no social media posts since 2014). That it's defunct isn't a good reason to delete. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment: the sources above do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Two paragraphs in a book is not significant coverage. The rest is about the company's plans and aspirations, as in:

"Kuapay Gets An Upgrade, Reaches 600 Locations Through Trials With KFC & Others" and
"Kuapay Grabs $4 Million Investment, Readies Global Expansion"

in addition to being PR-driven coverage and routine funding news. @Ohnoitsjamie, I nominated the page for deletion because the company is, IMO, non-notable, not because it's defunct. In any case, while it was active, it was WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe two paragraphs in a book help contribute to establishing notability. https://techcrunch.com/2013/06/05/mobile-wallet-kuapay-gets-an-upgrade-reaches-600-locations-through-trials-with-kfc-others/ contains detailed independent analysis of Kuapay. Here is an excerpt (my bolding):
Though Kuapay has some significantly sized deals under its wing now, the company’s efforts in attacking a worldwide market instead of growing region by region may find it struggling to gain consumer awareness and adoption. Shoppers already have far too many alternative ways to pay on hand, including Square and its overseas clones, PayPal, Google Wallet, and NFC-based initiatives, such as U.S. carrier-backed Isis, plus mobile payments services from leading credit card companies and banks. None have yet to establish a significant traction at point-of-sale — consumers still just swipe their cards or pay with cash. The fragmented mobile payments market is due for consolidation, which means smaller players like Kuapay may either get swept up by larger firms, or find themselves in need of a new strategy.
A routine article or an advertisement would not say that Kuapay "may find it struggling to gain consumer awareness and adoption" or "smaller players like Kuapay may either get swept up by larger firms, or find themselves in need of a new strategy". This detailed critical analysis provides "deep coverage" of the subject. From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage:
Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.
Cunard (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't have any strong feelings about keeping or deleting this article, but here are a few more mentions of the company from reliable sources – in Cinco Días, part of Spain's El País newspaper group [8], [9], and in Colombian newspaper La República [10] and in Dinero, the country's leading financial magazine [11]. It would be good, though, to have some sources indicating the current status of the company, as it certainly seems to be defunct, judging from the lack of any recent news or activity and the closure of its official website and social media outlets. From his LinkedIn profile, founder Joaquín Ayuso left Kuapay in 2015 [12], which implies that the company folded at that time or soon after – he now works for the Denizen division of multinational bank BBVA. Richard3120 (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since the previous AfD NCORP has been revised and the standards for ringing the N Bell tightened. The level of coverage would have been dicey under the old guideline. But it fails the new and improved NCORP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ Weak delete - changing my vote - I didn't realize they were inactive - didn't read the web site carefully enough. The question is were they notable enough when they existed. Based on the fact that none of my searches alerted me to the fact that they are gone, they're in weak delete territory now.~~I added a source to the lede showing notability. They are the official mobile payments provider of Chile. Plus Cunard's sources, and [[13]], [[14]], passes WP:GNG.~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtempleton (talk • contribs) 19:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No Tim, they are not the "official mobile payments provider of Chile". That was a BS claim made by the CEO. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why the retaildive article might count towards significant coverage, although it is mostly based on an interview. However, how does the LA Times piece help with notability? That is the briefest of mentions, and although reasonable editors can, do, and should disagree about what constitutes "significant coverage", I don't see how this one helps at all. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it's a passing mention and unsuitable for material to flush out the article; it's merely included for the sole purpose of this notability discussion - to show that KuaPay is on the payment app radar of one of the top newspapers in the US. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It says a lot when a so-called "notable" company goes under and .... nobody cares. I can't find a single source that reports this. Clearly the company was simply not notable. Fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably marginal, but given coverage of the company in multiple countries as given I think it qualifies under notability guidelines. Hzh (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Just pointing out that "coverage in multiple countries" is not part of the notability guidelines. The coverage itself must meet the criteria in WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:41, 18 July 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 20:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hack for Humanity (hackathon)[edit]

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

This is a combination of an essay, advocacy, and a list of non notable events. I do not really see how to make it into a WP article. Most of the refs are either the websites of those sponsoring the events, or miscellaneous websites, or altogether general not specifically relevant . DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is completely unsalvageable. --Yamla (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to the article's first sentence, "Hack for Humanity" is an expression, not a hackathon as the article title states. The article only uses the term "Hack for Humanity" once (in the first sentence), and none of the references use that term. Additionally, the reference cited for the first sentence is a link to "Hacks 4 Humanity," which appears to be a non-notable cancelled event. Newslinger (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:54, 13 July 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 20:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Roberts (software entrepreneur)[edit]

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

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable entrepreneur and his company, John Roberts (software entrepreneur)#X2Engine web application. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions, hyper-local, WP:SPIP and / or not independent of the company, which is non-notable either. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO, nor the new and improved WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would vote to redirect to SugarCRM, but the title of this article is too specific. Newslinger (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:27, 13 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Owen[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:NACTOR / WP:PORNBIO; the award ("Grabby Awards Wall of Fame") is trivial. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 00:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 00:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting our over broad inclusion criteria for pornographic performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of any notability, Hasn't won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Negligible content, minimal claims of notability. Grabby awards are not "industry awards" and therefore do not satisfy PORNBIO requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 16:34, 19 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Latif Berry[edit]

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

This gentleman, while a local religious leader, does not appear to be of enough noteworthiness to warrant his own Wiki article. TAG (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one source is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Monterey Bay (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 00:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 00:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 00:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Ortizesp (talk) 02:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Fails.Emily Khine (talk) 19:33, 13 July 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. WP:SKCRIT#1 - no argument for deletion or redirection. (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 16:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional diseases[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Poorly referenced, unclear inclusion criteria, largely in-universe fancruft. The references in the "further reading" section might support the creation of a Disease in fiction article, but this one should be deleted. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but this article does need a tidy-up. Such a list might serve a purpose, but some of the information in the column headed "Symptoms" are not really symptoms but causes of the disease or descriptions of the illness. Vorbee (talk) 07:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references provided in the further reading section seem to be excellent and confirm that the topic passes WP:LISTN. I spot-checked that the list has famous cases like the dreaded lurgi and the red death. It does and so we're good. Andrew D. (talk) 10:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A well maintained list that has been around since 2005 with edits and additions as recently as July 2018. Current references are adequate to show Notability.ShoesssS ^Talk 14:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the list is fairly clear, and serves a legitimate encylopedic value. It would make more sense with "cause" or "vector" as a column to filter the symptoms issues, but that's a cleanup issue. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:49, 12 July 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. Sock comments and comments about socks aside, there seems on balance to be more weight to deleting at this time. ansh 666 07:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mitu Bhowmick Lange[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

~~This individual is clearly not notable and the page was made to self promote her. Iamricednous (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

sockpuppet, struck Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing is just not there to say anything of substance about Lange.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator did not supply a reason for deletion. The article seems to be adequately referenced, although some links are dead. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The individual is non-notable this article seems to have been made clearly to promote the individual, which is a breach of Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamricednous (talk • contribs) 08:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

sockpuppet, struck Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable film director with not enough sources to prove notability. This article is a example of pure self-promotion. Inightfox (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppet, struck Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note User:Inightfox has exactly 2 contributions to Wikipedia so far, both being "Delete" votes in AFDs opened by Iamricednous, who themself is likely a sockpuppet. SPI requested. --Doncram (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Would love to see you prove the false allegations you have made against me. Inightfox (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

sockpuppet, struck Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or possibly Speedy Keep / Technical Keep. The nomination was by an editor now blocked as a sockpuppet, linked to other sockpuppet accounts which went on a deletion rampage. Unclear if this article was a real target or just a diversion to confuse matters about their real target. Not worth discussing the merits of the article topic. I suggest quick Keep without prejudice. --Doncram (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep editor who nominated is a blocked sock, and the article is sourced. Speedy Keep could be warranted here as well. Tillerh11 (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment having "sources" does not prove notability. We can find sources for thousands of individuals who are not notable. This is an overly promotional article on a minor figure in the film industry. Nothing comes even close to being the significant mentions in multiple reliable 3rd-party secondary sources that is needed to pass GNG. I still stand by my vote to delete this overly promotional article. Wikipedia is not Linkedin, it is not a place for self promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed a large amount of borderline-attack content both here and at Indian Film Festival of Melbourne. I'm also going to make an out-of-process relist on behalf of John Pack Lambert, in lieu of a speedy-keep-plus-renom. I'll remain neutral, the sourcing isn't great but there may be enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Out-of-process relist after reverting changes to the page, in the form of personal attacks, made by a disruptive editor.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In light of continued IP disruption of the article, I've neutrally canvassed this AFD on IRC to aid in getting a consensus. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~This is an attack article (as only includes accusations against Ms Lange, and not her responses).~~ I'm not convinced that the subject is notable for the purposes of inclusion in an encyclopedia either. Nick-D (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Black Kite for removing the BLP violations - I've just struck this part of my vote. I don't think that the subject of the article meets WP:BIO though, particularly noting the presumption in favour of privacy for living people. Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep She does appear to be borderline notable. However, as Nick-D says, this is (or was) an attack article. I've removed all the section about people not being paid, as that was an issue for the group she worked for, rather than her (and it was sourced to a blog). I've also removed the whole attack section about the IFFM, as that's not about her either. I've removed the links from the bottom section, as they didn't mention her either, and were therefore BLP issues as well. I'm about to go to the IFFM article and remove the BLP violations there, as well. Black Kite (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Trivial routine coverage about someone whose films won some laurels.NOTNOW.∯WBG^converse 08:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Several of the sources contain a little bit of commentary on her. She's been noticed. "Weak" because the sources mostly contain interview material which often makes the sources non-independent, and because the award she won, the Jill Robb Award is a non-notable industry award. Preferably find a merge target. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:NCREATIVE. She was a line producer. And then a co-producer in some (non Wikinotable) documentaries. We cannot make a mountain out of a molehill. -The Gnome (talk) 09:15, 20 July 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. Close, but consensus seems to be that the reviews just aren't enough. ansh 666 07:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merlin and the Book of Beasts[edit]

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

Non-notable "TV Movie". The first few pages of google hits is all routine stuff, no notable reviews or anything else which might confer notability. Very little in the actual article, just a plot synopsis and a cast list. No references at all, just an external link to the IMDB entry. Neiltonks (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 14:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 14:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has reviews in reliable sources such as a Dutch film magazine and DVD Talk as shown here with these links passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no substantial RS here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find coverage of the film apart from listing sites and some reviews from non-notable critics [15][16], therefore fails WP:NFILM. Hzh (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't the strongest keep, however I think that there's just enough here to just barely push it over the ledge. As far as I know, Something Awful's reviews have usually been seen as a reliable source on here since they're so limited - the site doesn't allow just anyone on the site to post a review ala IMDb, for example. It looks like there was a Radio Times review - there's a star rating and they typically do written reviews as well, although this seems to be missing from the page. There was also a review from the OK Gazette and DVD Talk. Not the strongest, but it looks like it does pass barely. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the Radio Times review [17] may be, it does not qualify under WP:NFO that requires full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. Similarly all the others found also fail as they are not by nationally-known critics. Hzh (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nationally known tends to change depending on the type of film. DVD Talk is a pretty well known and respected outlet and as stated before, Something Awful has typically been seen as a known review outlet. The OK Gazette may not be as big as say, the New York Times, but it is something that's relatively well known - we use it for sourcing in general, for example. I'm not sure why a news article from them on a topic would be a reliable source while a film review from them would not. As far as reviews not being enough to establish notability, I'm not sure if notability standards have changed that much in the year or so I've been away from AfD, but they've always been enough in the past. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – you need more than just reviews to show that a TV program is notable. And just reports on "production" info doesn't cut it either. Ideally, you have both reviews and "production coverage", and possibly other types of reporting/coverage beyond that. This one is just an overwritten 'Plot' section, with a few reviews tacked on. There needs to be more than this to be considered "notable". (In general, many TV movies do not meet the requirements of notability for standalone articles.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:NFILM. -The Gnome (talk) 09:17, 20 July 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. ansh 666 07:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zambuko House[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner talk 16:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NORG. The sources below below the level of depth required for WP:GNG, but are clearly non-trivial coverage of this organization in independent and reliable sources.

James, Emilia (May 25, 2013). "Church helps rehabilitate children living on the streets". The Zimbabwean.
Matambo, Kudakwashe (September 18, 2016). "Zambuko looks after everyone's child". The Sunday Mail.
"Tough times for street kids". Southern Eye. Xinhua. February 24, 2014.

— BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, In one sentence you have stated that the sources are not good enough, but still good enough?? The Banner talk 19:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the definition of significant coverage in WP:NCORP is different from the definition in WP:GNG. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Billhpike: - true, but NORG (as the same as NCORP) is viewed as stricter than GNG, and I'm not sure how Sig Cov is any less in NORG, if anything I'd say its more. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With some regret, Delete -- This is no doubt a worthy cause, but I cannot believe that a single children's home for 22 boys is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it may be small-scale but the references given above do seem to be significant coverage in reliable sources and are only partly interview, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, a decent institution, doing great work, but it is one of many, and nothing here to say it's notable enough for an article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the organization itself is righteous and a good thing; the article that describes it is under-referenced and non-notable.96.127.242.226 (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many people believe that inclusion of an article in Wikipedia about some person or a charity, would mean greater financial income for that subject. Well, it just doesn't work like this in real life. It's all mostly vanity. Despite what many specialists will impress on you, being in Wikipedia will not get you an appearance in your favorite club's first team next week, nor will it rain moolah into your charity's coffers. So, with admiration duly registered but without remorse, Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient sources of quality, probably to meet WP:GNG but certainly to meet WP:NORG. Having seen a few of Gnome's AfD !votes in recent days they do seem to have become more...interesting :S Nosebagbear (talk) 10:26, 20 July 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 and rename. ansh 666 07:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Duradundeeshwar Vidya Samavardhaka Sangha(SDVSS)[edit]

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

~~Non-notable organization. 2Joules (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

All commentary by confirmed sockpuppet struck off. -The Gnome (talk) 09:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a university-level institution. The acronym should not be part of the article's name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Eastmain This is not an institution. They are a corporation involved in managing schools, and as such thier inclusion should be based on WP:NCORP as other corporations. They fail that in my opinion. 2Joules (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be an organization that manages multiple schools and colleges, so it may be okay to retain like a private school district. I agree the article should be renamed without the acronym, which the title is formatted incorrectly anyway. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is a verifiable universtity-level educational institute, then it would certainly be notable; if, however, it is a company that manages schools and educational institutes, etc., than it has no inherent notability and must pass WP:GNG / WP:NCORP to warrrant inclusion in the encyclopaedia. Which, then, is it, I ask myself...? —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be just an organization that manages the schools. Also spelled as Sangh instead of Sangha. Could be shortened to SVDS Sangh [18] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator is a blocked sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreeatlastChitchat. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - equivalent to a US school district that have long been considered inherently notable. However, we have a more pragmatic reason to keep; these school management articles provide a convenient repository for information on schools and colleges that are non-notable. Just Chilling (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've reorganized the list of schools and added reference for the date established. Also if it is retained, it should be moved to SVDS Sangh without redirect per this [19] Shri Duradundeshwar Vidya Samvardhak Sangh is the full name but Shri Duradundeeshwar Vidya Samvardhak Sangh (with two e's) is also acceptable [20]. Also "S.V.D.S. Sangh" may be okay, but then you'll need to accommodate for spaces after each period in the abbreviation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above, and perhaps rename, for this English-language Wikipedia, e.g. to "SDVS Sangh". -The Gnome (talk) 09:27, 20 July 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 Day of Rage (Bahrain)#Aftermath which is the more specific target. ansh 666 07:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Fadhel Al-Matrook[edit]

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

Clearlt flunks WP:NOTNEWS how is this death notable among the hundreds killed in the 2011 Bahraini uprising and sources are not about the subject general Duostines (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (selective) to Bahraini uprising of 2011. Some coverage of this around 2011-2. Doesn't seem to have much lasting coverage, and BIO1E situation best covered (briefly) in the main article.Icewhiz (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Merge per above or to Day of Rage (Bahrain)#Aftermath where the event is briefly covered now. The event has some later coverage, e.g. Taking to the Streets: The Transformation of Arab Activism(2014) but can best be understood in the larger context. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per any suggestion as above. Subject sadly lacking Wikinotability. -The Gnome (talk) 09:28, 20 July 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Silva[edit]

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

Prod tag removed. Fails notability guidelines at WP:NSPORTS. She does not appear to have won a world championship, as suggested in the stub. Ifnord (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – More than meets the requirements under WP:SPORTBASIC as shown here with a quick Google News search [21]. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note that on the first page of the results you mention, she is mentioned in passing only in all the articles but two. One is for a poetry award for someone else with the same name and the other is a short blurb about her being injured in an automobile accident. WP:SPORTBASIC reads, "A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published, non-trivial, secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." No where can I find her attending olympic surfing competitions. Ifnord (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ahh…..Surfing will not become part of the Olympic Games until 2020 [22]. On the other hand, as stated in ienteria [23] “…Silva is the top-ranked Brazilian woman on the World Surf League’s Qualifying Series”, and as stated here at Wikipedia “…The World Surf League (WSL)[1] is the governing body for professional surfers and is dedicated to showcasing the world’s best talent in a variety of progressive formats”. Which I believe qualifies as”… participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level” ShoesssS ^Talk 07:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in the top 10 in the world more than once, so meets GNG. MurielMary (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Roadex Project. ansh 666 07:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ROADEX NETWORK[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The ROADEX Project. It looks like this nominated article is a section ripped out of its parent article. Newslinger (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Newslinger. Per nominator this sub-topic has insufficient notability to stand on its own. But the title is perhaps a valid redirect for the primary topic. (Target article does, however, need a lot of work itself...) Guliolopez (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. The plan was to try to have a historic ROADEX Project page and a live ROADEX NETWORK page but with your comments I have contacted my colleagues in ROADEX and we feel that the easiest way forward for ROADEX would be to append the suggested ROADEX NETWORK text to the ROADEX project page. There is still some work to do on the ROADEX Project page with citations and references and I hope that I will be able to do this in the coming weeks. Best regards Ron Ronmun (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above, and please be mindful of WP:COI. Try to avoid promotional language and unsourced info. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Added WP:COI messages to Talk:The ROADEX NETWORK and User talk:Ronmun#Affiliation with The Roadex Project. — Newslinger talk 12:55, 20 July 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. ansh 666 07:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merete Lien[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was kept at AfD in 2006, but I believe it does not pass our much-tighter modern notability criteria. I did a fairly thorough search involving a lot of Google translating, and I didn't find a single reliable source that profiled this author or even reviewed a single one of her books. Although she is apparently prolific, WP:NAUTHOR requires that being prolific is not enough for a notability claim; per point 3, a person must be the primary subject of a work discussing their body of work, or per point 4 it has to have attracted significant critical attention. I can find no evidence to confirm either.

None of the foreign-language Wikipedias have much more content, and none of them have any more reliable sources to use. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lien presents a very good analysis of the questions at hand. Being prolific does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Finally revealed, PMC is actually a Norwegian romance writer. -The Gnome (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shh, ikke si det høyt ;) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : subject's notability utterly lacks verification. The Norwegian-language Wikipedia offers nothing, either. -The Gnome (talk)`
Delete per Nominator's points 3 and 4. No sources which describe her as an author. Blue Riband► 02:47, 21 July 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 the disambiguation page (which was never properly the subject of this AfD) now that the hijack of the page for another subject has been reverted. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Reidy[edit]

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

Violates all three policies in WP:BLP, and no sources cited. I've done a bit of good-faith research on the claims in the article and was unable to verify them. While this person does have a channel as described in the article, the content is minimum and not notable enough for an encyclopedic article. Rosalina2427 (talk to me) 00:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete per WP:A7.~~ Despite the article's unsourced claims, a quick search reveals that the musician doesn't have a single entry on any notable music chart. Newslinger (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've reverted the self-promotional spam edits and restored the article to its previous state as a disambiguation page. Newslinger (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Newslinger. All the article needed was his reverts. MB190417 (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It's worth noting Bonadea had added sources after the AFD nomination hence why it doesn't rely on one source - Universities are never ever deleted and as the nominators rationale is now moot there's no point to keeping this open for another 3 days (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 13:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences[edit]

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

Relies on a single citation and isn't very encyclopedic IWI (chat) 00:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Does not rely on a single source - there is only one in-depth secondary source, and a couple of uses of Wikipedia as a source but that's a different matter (and it is easy enough to find other sources, for instance this entry in a Norwegian encyclopedia). It is an accredited, degree-awarding, government-owned university formed by the merger of two previous such universities. Notability is not in question, and was not mentioned in the nomination, so what exactly is the issue here? --bonadea contributions talk 06:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I looked at the article history and most of the current sources were added after the AfD nomination. Still, WP:BEFORE is important. In addition, this AfD was created when the article was only three minutes old. --bonadea contributions talk 06:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as merge of two established universities: Hedmark University College and Lillehammer University College. [24] The merge was done in 2017, so there should be sources indicating so, perhaps not in English, but this is fairly notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We keep secondary schools (high schools) and up. --Doncram (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a major public institution of higher learning, with six campuses and 12,000 students. Why want to have an article about a university deleted? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:15, 14 July 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 06:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Garfi (cat)[edit]

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

Not a notable animal. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "considered to be" is not even a claim of any real significance. I think it might qualify for speedy deletion. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Multiple reliable sources are listed at [25] and the following pages. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Fails WP:GNG as there is only one source. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 01:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BEFORE is worth remembering. This is not deep journalism, but it is coverage of an internet meme from several reliable sources independent from one another from different countries. I added several references, but didn't bother to add this Turkish one. Sometimes pile-ons lead to errors. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Typically I would express a delete opinion for a majority of meme’s. However, in this case, looking at coverage with concern to Garfi I see US Magazine, Daily Mail, BuzzFeed News and British Journal of Photography, as shown here [26]] covering the specific subject. In which case I believe clears the notability bar. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Typical meme-recentism.We are an encyclopedia.∯WBG^converse 06:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a passing meme. Nothing seems to have been published related to the cat since 2014. I know that notability isn't fleeting - once notable always notable - but in this case, in my opinion, the notability was never proven. The sources have very little meat, consisting of mostly just showing the photos, and the level AND quantity of the sources don't quite pass muster for me. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. There are a couple of later sources but they fail to either be reliable or fail Sig Cov. I'm also inclined a similar way towards DGG's case - as it is, it may well fail A7. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I’m sorry but we have coverage or more properly said, mentions, of Garfi as recently as June 2018 as shown here,[27]. I think that is pretty recent. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a mention of Garfield - the fat and orange cat - not Garfi, our Turkish friend. A site coding error split the word and affected your search. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:08, 19 July 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.