Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 July	14 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 08:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Durward Griffin[edit]

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

Not see any news coverage. Not sure they are notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no significant claim of notability, no references, and no notable hits on google, news, or scholar searches. --HunterM267 ^talk 23:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced bio. Bearian (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only reliable source I found online is of his dad's obit. Bearian (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article created by apparent single-purpose account with no sourced indication of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:34, 16 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. Sandstein 08:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

W. Timothy Garvey[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Reads like a CV. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It reads like a CV because it was copy-pasted from the faculty web page. Garvey meets WP:PROF with a named chair at the University of Alabama School of Medicine and a respectable publication record. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 (top citation count on Google Scholar = 1129, top as first author = 573, many other papers with over 100 citations) and #C5 (the named chair), as already discussed by StarryGrandma. Thanks to StarryGrandma for removing the copyvio from the article and making it look more like a proper stub. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if somebody will fix this mess. Bearian (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Did the nominator carry out WP:Before? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:46, 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 08:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of European Olympic medalists of African origin[edit]

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

This is a conflation of "black people" (Colin Jackson) and "people from Africa" (Alain Mimoun) and original research, and is not a reasonable list topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article is divided between African and Americas background.

Keep - I am sorry, but did I miss something regarding Race stated within the list? I didn’t see anything regarding "black people", just the names of the individuals who won either “Gold” – “Silver or “Bronze” in the individual events and their representative countries. All from the continent of Africa. The list is well maintained, realizing that it is still recently new, variable – and sourced. Are not these the guidelines for inclusion here at Wikipedia? ShoesssS ^Talk 22:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the problems have been fixed by Backij, but there are more; Gwladys Épangue was born in France. These problems exist because the list is WP:OR, and is a categorization that isn't a good topic for a WP:SAL article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zhan Beleniuk, for example, was born in Ukraine of one Ukrainian parent and one Rwandan parent. Given his parentage and place of birth, his origins are just as much Ukrainian (if not more so) as they are Rwandan.--TM 12:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And what is wrong with that, she is French with Senegalese background --Backij (talk) 09:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List title specifies "of African origin", not "of African background". Tera TIX 05:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic. Could a full length article be written on the topic? I don't think so. Therefore, it is a non-notable combination of various characteristics.--TM 17:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I am not sure I get this list, it feels very WP:OR. Govvy (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unencyclopedic cross-categorization – see WP:NOTDIR #6. Tera TIX 05:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: you could make an argument for European athletes that were born in Africa, but why does this need to exist? Unless we were planning on doing a series of articles on athletes that we all born overseas (Even then, it'd be a WP:WALLEDGARDEN effect.) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per ShoesssS. This is a list which passes WP:LISTPEOPLE. I don't see a problem here. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial intersection of nationality, race, and sport accomplishments. The criteria for inclusion is rather vague, and even with the clean up there are still many individual articles that have no mention of supposed African ancestry. A pretty clear example of WP:LISTCRUFT. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - List of European medalists of Asian and Oceanian origin should probably also be nominated for deletion if this discussion is closed as such. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:40, 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. Usually, I'd go with a minority-opinion merge, per WP:ATD, but if there's no WP:RS at all, then nothing meets WP:V, so merging isn't possible. Anybody who wants to add reliably sourced information to Rainie Yang is free to do so. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing for Happiness[edit]

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

Has no reliable sources. » Shadowowl | talk 20:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the references are YouTube videos and not reliable sources. 344917661X (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete YouTube is not a source of RS. I would review other album articles by this artist because their sources suffer from similar concerns.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article on Rainie Yang. Vorbee (talk) 07:38, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Criminal[edit]

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

Puff piece : contains a spammy link and a bit of advertising for his clothes, sacrificed a lot, rise to prominence, his fame. This article also contains a bunch of unreliable sources. » Shadowowl | talk 20:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity article with peacock language and self promotion. References are self downloads. I'm not sure how this survived AfD 12 years ago other than our standards then rewarded showing up in google searches, rather than the more defined criteria that it takes to establish GNG and WP:MUSIC. In fact, upon second glance, I see one of the keep editor's comments at the time was "MySpace profiles are a good way to gauge the indie scene...", which right there says everything one needs to know about how WP:MUSIC criteria has evolved. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability aside, WP:TNT applies here. This reads more like a puff piece than an encyclopedia article.Accesscrawl (talk) 19:36, 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 08:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Body on Pen-y-Ghent[edit]

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

Quite simply, Wikipedia is not news. Purely local happening. The references are thirteen years or more stale. The event had no lasting impact. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of articles involving unidentified corpses. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lytton

What is the difference other than the fact that she was Asian? Are white people more worthy of a Wikipedia article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscious_bias_training — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nacentaeons (talk • contribs) 20:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Information in article sounds like it should be in the local paper. No significance to notability of victim and appears to also be a cold case. Agree with RHaworth that Wikipedia is not for news. — Mr X ^☎️ 20:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 03:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 03:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 03:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi this article was nominated for deletion almost as soon as it was started. I believe this was premature. I would urge everyone to reread this article as you probably read an early version. This is a notable event which received national attention in the form of Guardian and BBC articles as recently as a few days ago (see references). This article concerns the discovery of the body of a foreign national in a bizarre location which is notable in itself. It also triggered an international investigation and this event is therefore not a purely local happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nacentaeons (talk • contribs) 15:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS -- RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) » Shadowowl | talk 10:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charakonda[edit]

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

I do not understand this. Has no sources. Is it a business park, or a town? What are they fighting for? » Shadowowl | talk 20:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I have figured out the cause of the confusion.
1. There used to be a Charakonda village in the Vangoor mandal in the Mahbubnagar district of the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh (see 2011 census report for district)
2. Then in 2014, the Andhra Pradesh state got split, creating a new state of Telangana. And more recently, in 2017, the districts in Telangana got [completely revamped (which means all pre-2017 sources became pretty much useless as far as administrative division information goes).
3. Now, there is a Charakonda mandal in the Nagarkurnool District in the Indian state of Telangana (see District website, which I expect to be the most up-to-date source)
4. To add somewhat to the confusion the Charakonda mandal itself contains a Charakonda village, which possibly corresponds to the village listed in point (1)

Now, even if the above is a convincing story to us, we cannot write it up in mainspace without running into WP:SYNTH issues. So I suggest we just have a one-two line article based on point (3), and drop a note on the talk page that editors should ignore any pre-2017 sources since even if they are otherwise reliable, they may not reflect the current situation. Abecedare (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Updated article based on above information. Since the district sub-division is verifiable, it should be a non-controversial keep per WP:NGEO. @Shadowowl: if you agree would you like to withdraw the nomination? Abecedare (talk) 18:13, 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. A consensus for deletion has been established. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archduchess Maria Carolina of Austria (1748)[edit]

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

I am uncertain on how we can write a comprehensive article on a child that was nearly stillborn. I am having quite a bit of trouble with finding valid sources on this child that mention her for more than a few short lines of text. Also, I have little faith in the reliability of "mariaantoinette.npage.de." This article relies almost exclusively on this one reference. I am unsure of who owns the website and where they obtained their information. Furthermore, judging by the template at the bottom of the page, we do not have articles on a significant number of longer-lived Austrian archduchesses. If this page is to exist, then it should be a redirect. There is simply no possibility that this article can improve from its present state as a stub-class article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being a stub article is not grounds for deletion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested this article for deletion as I do not believe that the subject of this article is sufficiently notable. She does not seem to have any coverage outside of works about her parents. Most of those mentions are rather brief, and do not indicate that she is independently notable. The subject of an article is not notable merely because they are or were related to a notable subject. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In that she only lived about 12 hours, back in the 1700's, and we are still talking about her….I believe that is notable. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She is barely discussed at all. Outside of biographies of her parents, she is only mentioned in genealogical websites. When I clicked the JSTOR, the Google Scholar and The New York Times options that this page provided, I found nothing. On Google Books, I found one book that mentioned her. This book described her in two sentences and then quickly moved on to the birth of another child.^[1] ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Vovk, Justin C. In Destiny's Hands: Five Tragic Rulers, Children of Maria Theresa. iUniverse, 2010, P. 9 "Archduchess+Maria+Carolina+of+Austria+(1748)"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8we6zjJ3cAhXEct8KHUJrBHA4ChC7BQgrMAA#v=onepage&q="Archduchess%20Maria%20Carolina%20of%20Austria%20(1748)"&f=false 1

Hello Susmuffin. I am not disagreeing with this nomination, hence my comment versus a Keep or Delete opinion. Maybe a Merge/Redirect would be more appropriate? Looking through the Maria Theresa piece I noticed that the was no section with regards to children. This could be a nice start to a new section. Just a suggestion. Regards. ShoesssS ^Talk 02:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERIT. Had it not been for the notability of her parents her existence would not even be known. Blue Riband► 02:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This infant girl died on the day she was born. There is nothing even vaguely remotely close to notable about her. The article is mainly about how being pregnant with her effected her mother. The current article on the mother of this child has a whole paragraph on her children and pregnancies that presents the issues involved in a much more encyclopedic way than is presented here. This is ludicrous overkill at a level that is not needed in any encyclopedia. I take this up a nothc. If there was a reighning female monarch at the level of actually running the government of her country today the way Maria Theresa was in Austria in the 18th-century, and her 10th or so child died the day she was born, I would still support delete. Of course, for the record, I am also going to oppose creating an article on the first royal child of Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, and no amount of "this is the first partly of African descent British royal" is going to persuade me otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A child who died perinatal death is inevitably NN, even where the mother was an empress. We might possibly redirect to a list of her children. The alleged portrait is almost certainly of a token baby, not from the actual body. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the point above that a child who died so quickly is unlikely to be notable. If her death had a considerable impact (and the article as it stands does not seem to show that it did) then a case could be made, but even then it could probably be better covered in her mother's article or possible her father's. Dunarc (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a tenth of 16 children, and she lived for hours? no. Agricolae (talk) 22:17, 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. Sandstein 08:55, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Royson James[edit]

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO. Lack of significant coverage of reliable sources. The editor whose username is Z0 17:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Fails WP:JOURNALIST. MB190417 (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, a journalist is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because his existence can technically be verified by a primary source directory of his own work on the website of his own employer — a journalist does not get over our notability standards by being the author of coverage of other things, but by being the subject of coverage written by other people. Bearcat (talk) 12:47, 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 keep. Overall consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bud Lathrop[edit]

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

Other than coaching high school basketball for multiple decades and having an 3:1 winning record, I am unable to find anything notable about the subject. — Mr X ^☎️ 17:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page was previously recommended for deletion here and article creator NeelyCrenshaw removed the original AfD here without a discussion on the talk page. — Mr X ^☎️ 17:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Kudoos to the individual Bud Lathrop and sympathies to his family for their loss. He is a hero to his community and justly so. However, for inclusion for an Encyclopedia, I believe we need to be held to standards that show the impact of an individual that extends beyond the limited interactions of a city or State. Looking at the references, supplied by Google News, as shown here [1], I find nothing other than local coverage from the Kansas City Star. Sorry to say, by my standards, this does not meet the bar for inclusion in an encyclopedia covering the world. More for a listing in Who’s Who. Again, sympathies to the family. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG in my opinion. I also ipmroved the article a bit and added more sources. Dammit_steve (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well. Sources demonstrate that multiple, independent and reliable sources have covered the topic in-depth.--TM 11:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG with sources from Dammit steve. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed that a high school sports coach is not usually sufficiently notable, but this one now has enough coverage in RSs to pass WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Again my sympathies to the family. And to reiterate my feelings that Mr. Lathrop is a true “Hero” to his community, friends and family, this in my “Hearts of Hearts” I do believe. However, I still stand by my “Delete” opinion. I see editors posting updates on this reference or that reference, to his page, showing that Mr. Lathrop is truly “Notable” within his community and the article should be Kept, and they are right, except they are all from a local source. However, as I said before; “…I believe we need to be held to standards that show the impact of an individual that extends beyond the limited interactions of a city or State.” To be included here at Wikipedia. Thanks for listening. Regards……ShoesssS ^Talk 17:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is plenty of coverage of him. Newspapers.com has alot which may not be on Google, such as a story from January 20, 1990 in the the Springfield News Leader. Even if his attention was solely within the state of Missouri (and I am not sure it was), I don't see that as a disqualification from inclusion in an encyclopedia. Coverage exclusive to a small town, maybe, but not across multiple cities, including major cities, within a state. Rlendog (talk) 15:08, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 08:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Gowan[edit]

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

non notable writer . No evidence of having actually published any books. DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Non notable writer, but notable RMS Titanic historian. As the article and the sources says, one of the most important. This is enough to have a wikipedia article. Alsoriano97 (talk) 9:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

— Note to closing admin: Alsoriano97 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nautical-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- So he has allegedly done meticulous research into the minutiae of the Titanic. Its sinking was a notable event, but that does not mean that any person who writes about it is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep As long as better, third party sources can be used., and the article recast from its currently obituary-type format. Phil Gowan was indeed a good scholar re: the RMS Titanic. RIP, Mr. Gowan.TH1980 (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet GNG or NAUTHOR. Certainly would be notable on Ecyclopedia Titanica or Titanicpedia - but not here.Icewhiz (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable Titanic historian. NAUTHOR is irrelevant when GNG is met. In addition to some of the good sources already cited, i found https://www.scnow.com/news/local/article_e8e25829-21b1-50f7-9303-ab6fb70ca513.html and https://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/a-night-to-remember-a-survivor-forgotten/article_b34ee7ec-868d-11e1-9445-001a4bcf887a.html. In addition to these sources that discuss him in-depth, he is mentioned in dozens of sources on Titanic-related topics [2] whixh all the more raise his credibility as a respected Titanic historian. 106.208.49.250 (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets the prof test as a famous hisotrian in his own right. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:05, 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 keep. Sandstein 08:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WriterDuet[edit]

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

Seemingly only passing mentions of the subject in notable sources, and write-ups in non-reliable sources. This article created by a WP:SPA seems to fall short of WP:CORP. A preliminary news search didn't unearth much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not an admin, but this may fall under CSD G4. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an original page, content is not a recreation of a previously deleted page. --Denniswriter22 (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, without seeing deleted content neither you nor I can assert that. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WriterDuet is a major competitor (third-largest) in the screenwriting software space, among other software that each have their own pages and are discussed on the Screenwriting software page, such as Final Draft, Celtx and Fade In which is much more minor. WriterDuet's presence in the niche screenwriting software space is also significant online; Knowledge of the space is incomplete and not reflective of the industry as represented online without the existence of a WriterDuet page. --Denniswriter22 (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Denniswriter22: Hi there, I see you're new, so, welcome! To clarify, just because other articles exist doesn't mean that this one should. Also, if I'm honest, the sourcing for those other articles isn't great, and Wikipedia isn't a platform for niche screenwriting software. It's an encyclopedia to record what has already been discussed, in depth, by reliable trusted sources. Hope this helps clear up some things, and again, welcome! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drewmutt: Thanks! I meant that screenwriting software itself is a niche product -- and I agree, probably makes sense for the Screenwriting software page to stay and the rest to go (especially since a lot of them are deprecated). I'll turn my focus to that! --Denniswriter22 (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I moved this to mainspace from AfC. I did it because I believed it met criterion 1 of WP:NSOFTWARE, specifically "is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field", in this case screenwriting software. I based this on:

-13-paragraph feature on the software on The Wrap [3] in which its significance in China as a Mandarin-language program is examined

-3 substantive paragraphs on the software in a New York Times article [4] in which its gender assessment tool is explained within the context of screenplay gender bias

-2 paragraphs on the software in a Boston Globe article [5]

Further, the most cursory BEFORE search finds additional coverage of more than incidental or WP:ROUTINE character in The Times [6], The Independent [7], Tom's Guide [8], and PCMag [9] with incidental mentions in The Weekly Standard [10] and Daily Dot [11]. The original AfD discussion arrived at a correct conclusion as none of this material existed at that time and was all published after that AfD had closed. Obviously the situation has changed since then, however. While it seems possible-to-probable that the author has an undisclosed WP:COI, the AfC reviewing requirements specifically require reviewers to accept all "article submissions that are likely to survive an AfD nomination" and do not envision us conducting a DIY SPI on editors who submit. Chetsford (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found the following [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. While we don't have significant coverage in and of these multiple sources, we do have enough coverage to lead me to think that this notable. The additional sources provided by Chetsford help to support that idea. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 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 Relisted. My apologies; I didn't know how to relist. (non-admin closure) The Duke of Nonsense^{What is necessary for thee?}. 20:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meddy[edit]

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

Relisted. The Duke of Nonsense^{What is necessary for thee?}. 17:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I feel the references within the article provide sufficient suitable sourcing to pass WP:NCORP. If someone has the capability (or a better translator than google!) to look in the local languages that might grant us a bit more detail Nosebagbear (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 19:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 19:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 19:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its still ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meddy so you can't relist it here. That's now how relisting works. Dream Focus 20:10, 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. Here are the entries if somebody wants to make the dab page: Sushmitha Singha Roy, Pranjit Singha Roy. Sandstein 08:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sinha Roy[edit]

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

Surname. A copy in draft (March 2018) by the same author with no sources provided. Article recreated. A WP:BEFORE found no WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS to establish WP:N CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the author[edit]

May I ask you all to lend me 15 days of time.

Arka (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article can be improved rather than deleting it.

Arka (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also see for it's alt spelling !

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

Arka (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The existence of the last name can be easily confirmed, but there seem to be no sources available that discuss the name as a name, or the community that uses it. Without such sources, we cannot write an encyclopedic article on the subject. I would have suggested converting Sinha Roy into a simple disambiguation page, but wikipedia only has articles on persons that use a variant spelling Singha Roy, so at best Singha Roy would be the dismbiguation page and Sinha Roy could redirect there. Abecedare (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A good amount of time has been given but it hasn't improved the article source-wise. Notability still hasn't been met. It's a little strange in format as it is. Some more sourcing would allow it to be a disambig page, otherwise a straight delete or redirect (depending on thoughts on Abecedare's comment above) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! I agree with the community. I am moving this page to Disambib "Singha Roy" and redirect the page to it. Its quite clear that this article doesn't meet WP:N, however it is not delete-worthy as well. I am copying the source code to the Draft:Sinha Roy and edit on both the pages so that it could meet notability sometime. I am still searching on the sources and ref. to it if I get one.ARKA (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done!Now this discussion is closable. I did what I mentioned earlier.ARKA (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dr. Sroy: I have undone your move of the article to Singha Roy(disambiguation) (that's the wrong target in any case). Please let this discussion conclude. Abecedare (talk) 21:52, 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. A clear consensus that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards has been established herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Asinari[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:BIO Kleuske (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources. - Hirolovesswords (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon the talk page, the article was written by the son of the subject. Based upon the usernames involved, it may also have been edited by the subject of the article recently. Dekimasuよ! 03:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Small comment: The user in question may not have realized the policy/guidelines regarding editing of articles by their subject, and their rationale for the edit seems to be this. (I have no opinion on anything; I just wanted to provide context.) - Purplewowies (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO main sources used for a lot of it is persons own LinkedIn account. NZFC^(talk)
Delete fails WP:GNG] and WP:BIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This subject of this article runs an advertising and branding agency who appears to be going about its normal business activities, servicing clients one of which is a space start-up. I just can't see anything particularly notable or out of the ordinary in that. BronHiggs (talk) 09:22, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biobor[edit]

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

single citation, appears to function just as an advert. has been tagged as advert since 2011 MartinezMD (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All third-party references to the subject that I have found are to store pages or trivial "market research" listings. --HunterM267 ^talk 16:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems like a useful product, but I don't see sufficient coverage in reliable independent sources to be included in Wikipedia. Peacock (talk) 10:55, 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stonebridge Park Depot RDT[edit]

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

This looks like an accidentally-created copy of {{Stonebridge Park Depot RDT}}. Jc86035 (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I produced this RDT, and it is indeed an accidentally-created copy of the template. I thought I had requested that it be deleted at the time, but presumably could not have. It should be deleted. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:34, 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) 21:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiebes[edit]

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

Only one article exists in Wikipedia, the disambig page is useless B dash (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This can be recreated if and when Jacobus Theodorus Wiebes, or some other person with the surname "Wiebes", has an article to list — but we don't need surname lists where only one person with that surname is actually a blue link. I'm willing to reconsider if somebody with access to adequate sources for entomologists can get Jacobus into place before this closes. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete disambiguation pages by just last name are generally deprecated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 16 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. Sandstein 09:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of most popular websites[edit]

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

This list serves no purpose other than being hidden advertising for Alexa.

The problems with this List-article, noted in increasing order, are

The ranking methodology used by Alexa is, at best, questionable.
The input (data collected from websites), used as basis for producing the output (creating the the ranking list and details), is incomplete to an unknown extend.
The items found in the list are wildly incomparable from a technical vantage point: Items are individually defined based on incoherent random decisions about what an Item is.
- Domains and websites are not same.
- FQDNs and partial domains are not to be merged and split at random per item.
Any collection, or list, of websites is absolute useless from a utility perspective, when the only commonality is "popularity" (and that even if popularity was a hard metric).
Seriously! If anyone disagree on that, then please create a "List of most popular physical objects".

-- DexterPointy (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC) DexterPointy (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone’s a little over-enthusiastic with a delsort tool.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep - this article serves its purpose, and will probably get re-created if deleted. I was of the opinion that it will probably get more viewings than List of most-followed Instagram accounts - and indeed, when I checked number of viewers, I found that List of most-followed Instagram accounts only got 52 viewers, whereas List of most popular websites got 233. Vorbee (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Sourced and a perfectly good list topic. Yes, you could find the same information elsewhere but that is not a reason to delete - WP is an encyclopaedia and so should include everything if it satisfies our inclusion criteria which this certainly does.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above users. Re. popularity/physical objects, article has a purpose. Any problems with methodology can invite us to use alternative listings, but otherwise report the listing(s) using the best methodology. (Same goes for what counts as a site). If output is incomplete, up to our editors to update it as best as published information allows us. MB190417 (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Drilling into the attempted arguments.

[User:Vorbee] : "this article serves its purpose, ..."
: The only purpose having been claimed this far, is its serving as advertisement for Alexa. (Which is actually reason for deletion, not keeping).
[User:Vorbee] : "..., and [it] will probably get re-created if deleted."
: Keeping garbage, because garbage will return if removed, isn't a great reason for avoiding to remove the garbage. It's also false, because WPAdmins can pre-block its recreation.
[User:Vorbee] : concerning page-view comparisons.
: Your sources for your numbers are unclear to me, so here's something I found.
Anyway: Traffic alone isn't itself overly indicative of neither article quality nor reader satisfaction.
Traffic origin and bounce rate for that page would really come in handy here, but I don't know where I can get them (they might not be public), so I have to settle for less.
A qualified guess (based on WP's own previous statements on WP traffic in general) would be that the vast majority of traffic is sourced by Google.
In also having an good idea about how search-kn00bs uses Google, then I, as an example for here, did the Google Search [most popular google websites].
Result: Well, as far as search-intention goes (that's a big woo-woo to Google), then Google partly failed: The top ranked organic result, which I got from that search, was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_popular_websites (In second position came https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products ).
Saying: I'm rather suspicious towards the empirical data (page-views) possibly being used for arguing that the page is worth keeping.(I hope it's now easy to see how a high traffic volume could be an affidavit of failure, not success. )
[User:JohnBlackburne] : "Sourced and a perfectly good list topic.", and "include everything if it satisfies our inclusion criteria which this certainly does."
: Allow me to improve that ~~personal opinion~~ objective argument by a little sprinkling, so to have it read: "Eminently sourced and a perfectly wonderful list topic", and "include everything if it satisfies our inclusion criteria which this so obviously and most certainly does, beyond any doubt in the entire Universe."
(I hope John got a sense of humour, and a lack of vanity.)
[User:MB190417] : "Re. popularity/physical objects, article has a purpose. ..."
: Smith, I know you're very concerned about purpose (though unclear in this specific context), and that the architect (not editors) may have a job to do, but aside from that: Your transpilation into English wasn't a great fulfilling experience for me; me being just a common reader. I'm far less competent than Mr. Anderson (aka. Neo to some).
(Anyone not familiar with the matrix will undoubtedly here suspect me of completely having lost my marbles.)

-- DexterPointy (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list of the most popular websites on the internet is quite encyclopedic. Alexa rating system is used by reliable sources. Dream Focus 06:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Alexa rating system is used by reliable sources." : That's either a false or a meaningless statement. -- DexterPointy (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. It also shows data from another website that measures the most popular websites, so it isn't just an Alexa advert. 344917661X (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful info for people who don't know alexa. Accesscrawl (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree, not everyone knows about the Alexa ranking website, but pretty much everyone knows what wikipedia is, so people are more likely to find results here. 344917661X (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Observations, from Wikipedia Policy

WP:NOTDIR : "Wikipedia is not a directory"

States:

Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed.

Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional).

7. Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, store locations, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions.

This "List of most popular websites" violates both 1. and 7. of "Wikipedia is not a directory".

WP:OR : "Wikipedia:No original research"

Both Alexa and SimilarWeb (being the only sources for the list) have created their own methodology and techniques. While this undoubtedly has been unavoidable due to lack of any common standard for use, then this does not automatically mean that their methods and operations get to be regarded as acceptable or reliable. In fact, both Alexa and SimilarWeb are private enterprises, and treats their own invented methods and data as proprietary. Needless to say that: validation and verification of any original research (and products springing from such), is impossible without full disclosure (no COI-free peer-review can ever be performed without granting access to what needs reviewing).

-- DexterPointy (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong in your reading of WP:NOTDIR. They are not "loosely associated" – their popularity is a key feature of many of them – which is the most popular search engine, for example, or the most popular social networking site ? – and web site ranking is one of the few ways of measuring this as they are hard to compare otherwise, especially across the Great Firewall. It’s popularity is often mentioned when Wikipedia is reported on in particular. And that is the context. If e.g. Wikipedia is the fifth most popular website then the obvious question is which are the four more popular than it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. Bondegezou (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:LISTN, plenty of books/news that discuss this subject, lets play in the snow. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE OMFG, Nominator should go talk to Bruce Willis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.63.1.74 (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, nice meme :-) -- DexterPointy (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable topic for a list. It shows two companies' statistics. Alexa is there not just because it exists or because it's perfectly accurate but because it's the company often used by secondary sources when reporting on web traffic, and we defer to secondary sources' determinations of what's noteworthy. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:53, 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 09:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Omniscien Technologies[edit]

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

No WP:INDEPENDENT references. A BEFORE search finds nothing other than the WP:ROUTINE. Chetsford (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost no coverage that is both reliable and intellectually independent. That includes a check on the former name as well. There was barely routine coverage in suitable sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:57, 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 09:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solemn Camel Crew[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Not able to find substantial coverage in credible sources that can help in asserting notability as per WP:GNG. Hitro talk 14:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No doubt created by someone in the band, Anyway no evidence of any notability, Fails BAND & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Article created by the SPA "Jonbear83", who I would imagine is band member Jonathan Brammer, as nobody else would have access to the completely unverifiable statements about their earlier work, or the recording dates of their albums. No reliable (or unreliable) sources exist, and playing the occasional gig on the UK festival circuit doesn't make them more notable than the hundreds of bands doing the same every year. Richard3120 (talk) 17:51, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CADE ATP System Competition[edit]

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

Article's references are either written by the competition organizer, or imply inherent notability derived from the competition's participating theorem provers, or from similar competitions. wumbolo ^^^ 13:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. CASC has been a major event in Automated Reasoning for over 20 years, and has, to a significant degree, shaped the field of Automated Theorem Proving. It has inspired other competitions like SMT-COMP and the SAT Race, with papers acknowledging that influence. There are literally 100s of papers mentioning CASC on Google Scholar ([19] shows 5600 hits, I've only checked the first 120 or so]). Yes, the reports on the competition are mostly co-written by the main organiser, but they have appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific press, e.g. the Journal of Automated Reasoning, AI Communications, and various Springer-published proceedings of A- and A+-level conferences. There are also plenty of papers not by the organiser. This seems to be an ill-informed proposal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this source [20] calls the competition a "world cup of provers", which I believe is a sufficient claim of significance. Not a run-of-the-mill event. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@K.e.coffman: That does not address my notability concerns. wumbolo ^^^ 16:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Credible claim of notability in its field, with appropriate sources to back it up. Alansohn (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alansohn: which sources? Are we looking at the same article? wumbolo ^^^ 18:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. The article I look at currently has 9 sources, 8 from peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings, and 5 of these independent of the organiser. And there is hundreds more on Google Scholar. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is clearly notable. scope_creep (talk) 12:09, 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 09:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James P Honey[edit]

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

Vanity page created by subject of non notable music act - fails Music and GNG Rayman60 (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:45, 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. No third-party sources means deletion. The notability guidelines may or may not be deficient, but they are still applied. Sandstein 09:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edbrowse[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted at AFD, article contains no independent third-party sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 13:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Found No (0) secondary sources for “Edbrowse", as shown here [21]. As such delete ShoesssS ^Talk 14:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches are not finding better than forum postings. Absence of the WP:RS coverage which would be needed to overturn the previous AfD consensus. Fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Hi, this argument for Keep is from the edbrowse developers. We are hoping the edbrowse wikipedia page can be kept on the basis of the fact that edbrowse is in several code distributions or distros: Debian, Arch, FreeBSD, Ubuntu and MacPorts. We feel that for a software package this demonstrates corroboration by independent parties that edbrowse is in widespread use. Why? Distros have resource limitations and only want to include projects that have a user base. We have improved the wikipedia page with up-to-date references to the five package-search results pages. This demonstrates that edbrowse is included. Also, please compare the notability threshhold for Tinyproxy, which, like edbrowse, is free-and-open-source software that lists its distros in lieu of outside press coverage. Thank you. 69.228.171.29 (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Sorry to say, that is the worst argument to make! It shows Conflict Of Interest. As such, DELETE. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 07:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can find no mention of it in "news" sources, but for comparison's sake, I can only find one news result (and that over a decade old) searching for "browser for the blind". It is my opinion that the notability guidelines are deficient if this program does not meet them. --Elijah (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at the article and felt I’d typed man edbrowse by mistake. Complete lack of sources. This really isn’t the right sort of topic that should be put in a global encyclopedia, and the program isn’t going to vanish into thin air just because there’s no article here. I wonder why the developers think a presence here is important? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:22, 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 09:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Birdhill services[edit]

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

It's a service station. There are zillions of those in the US alone. Surely there are better things to write about?

Other than a few websites dedicated to service stations, there are no sources which discuss this topic. If this page is deleted the other articles in this series – List of motorway service areas in Ireland, Castlebellingham services, Enfield services, Lusk services, Paulstown services, Rathcoole services, Galway Plaza, Manor Stone services, and Junction 14 Mayfield – should be PRODed. I've left Barack Obama Plaza separate, because that one seems to have received some actual press coverage. Jc86035 (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all per nom. These services stations are not notable at all. Except for Barack Obama Plaza, as that has received alot of coverage due its namesake. Spleodrach (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, no notability for them. I'd be happy for all to be deleted except Obama Plaza and potentially the list of service areas in Ireland (possible that one picks up enough coverage across the whole set and I'm happy to agree it could be useful) Nosebagbear (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Spleodrach and Nosebagbear: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doncaster North services – it looks like the articles for the service stations in Ireland are modelled on the series of British service stations, which have existed for at least 13 years. There is an old AFD from 2006, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donington Park services, which was closed as keep. (I stand by my preference to delete this one, but Watford Gap services is a good article.) Jc86035 (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, not all service areas will warrant deletion. Many of the older ones will just build up articles, as well as the occasional focus on the odd one. If this AfD does indicate delete and set a rough consensus on stations I would ask that it doesn't trigger an avalanche of Prods just because they're a station - they will still need to be checked over case by case. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTDIR and WP:GNG. It's just a service station with a few stores attached, hardly not a major shopping complex. I'm happy to bundle all the other articles into an AfD for nomination as well (with the exception of Barack Obama Plaza). Ajf773 (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth, once we're concluded here, throwing anything that hasn't had at least one of us say Keep it into PROD. At the end of the week all the ones that survived PROD can go into a bundled AfD (potentially along with anything that didn't get put in PROD to start with - judgement call by nom). This seems the safest/most legitimate way to do it. Just my $0.02 Nosebagbear (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've added PROD to all articles now. I can probably see an bundle AfD being a potential trainwreck as it was for two previous attempts to nominate every UK service area article for deletion. Ajf773 (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for that Ajf773 - you may well be right on the AfD front. Did you prod the Obama Plaza/service areas in Ireland? Just wanted to check as I couldn't find them but you said all - just checking to deProd them if you had included them. As a side note to everyone, the articles are in the "14th July" category, though your computer might show 15th, depending on gadgets used. :) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Meanwhile, coincidentally, I have been building List of historic filling stations and creating new articles on various Filling stations. Are any of these ones architecturally distinctive or listed buildings? —Doncram (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Preferably I'd prefer merging and having one big article but there we are, Like above there's nothing notable about service stations. Fails NOTDIR & GNG.. –Davey2010^Talk 13:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There is List of motorway service areas in the United Kingdom which is somewhat better than current List of motorway service areas in Ireland; merger to the latter seems reasonable, and discussion about improving that list-article should happen at its Talk page. Some participant(s) here once went apoplectic about my statement at a previous AFD that if there is a Wikipedia article about something, maybe that something was more notable than other somethings not having Wikipedia articles. That may be the case here. Anyhow, coverage of motorway service areas would in my view naturally be better accomplished in list-articles with the service areas presented in geographical order along their routes, and with photos and footnotes (as in the UK list), and with coordinates viewable in a {{GeoGroup}} link to Google maps, and with some sourced description text about each one conveying something about its importance. Better done in a list-article, and with rational discussion about standards at its Talk page. --Doncram (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is absurd to suggest that service stations cannot be notable. The article Motorway service area is completely okay, and it is completely okay to split out a list of service areas from it, that is a matter for discussion about article size etc at its Talk page and is not for AFD. AFD about scattered items is not the best place to discuss standards for inclusion in the list-article which can be decided by its editors.

By the way, I removed PRODs on a few articles mentioned above, given that this AFD is ongoing and IMO that merger/redirect to an available, existing list-article, as here, is almost always preferable to outright deletion (except cases of blatant copyvio perhaps). The Ireland service areas list-article was either not PRODed by anyone or else someone else removed the PROD there. --Doncram (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the content of this article (and many other UK/Ireland services articles) being solely a list of facilities, there is nothing of value to merge. Of course there are a few exceptions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment About the deletion nomination statement, what is wrong with "websites dedicated to service stations" as sources; we generally use webpages on a topic for coverage of a topic. Browsing in the Google searches, I see a lot of hits on business directory type listings and business opportunity mentions, and there are transport and infrastructure fan website mentions such as [~~link struck out~~ "Could do with a proper online service area near Cashel alright. M7 wipes the floor with Barack Obama Plaza & Birdhill services all between Portlaoise and Limerick."]. There is [~~link struck out~~ this Revolvy site] (doesn't look particularly reliable, i dunno if it is a wiki) speaking about it having been created as a service area in just 2014, which would go against notability. There's more than I am going to wade through. Can anyone else do some proper searching for anything about architecture and economic development and otherwise? (one or both of those links are on a Wikipedia blacklist forcing me to strike) --Doncram (talk) 20:21, 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 Overwrite with Toontown (disambiguation). There is rough consensus that, at this time, this is redundant to the Toontown (disambiguation) page, which is to be moved to this location. Any still relevant content can then be merged from the history to wherever it is needed. This is without prejudice to knowledgeable editors using the "untapped literature on the topic" and this page's history to create a new version of this article that clearly establishes notability under a new title such as Toontown (fictional city). Sandstein 09:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toontown[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG. I haven't found any non-trivial mentions of Toontown itself. Mickey's Toontown and Toontown Online both have articles and I suggest that whatever isn't in those articles is merged there, with this article changed to a redirect to the article with the most pageviews. Sjö (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Toontown (disambiguation) and/or Who Framed Roger Rabbit; it's not entirely clear whether this page is a glorified DAB page, or about the area in Who Framed Roger Rabbit. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toontown (disambiguation) as the article covers more than just Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Aoba47 (talk) 05:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable and move Toontown (disambiguation) to that namespace._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as this article is little more than a DAB page at this point, which we already have at Toontown (disambiguation). I am Quibilia. (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per discussion on my talk page where wbm1058 has requested reopening of the discussion which I agree with.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sjö, Mark the train, Power~enwiki, Aoba47, Zxcvbnm, and Quibilia: notice of reopened discussion.

Keep. I will make several signed points below, which you may respond to individually, as desired. wbm1058 (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. Redirecting to Toontown (disambiguation) is a nonstarter as that put the pages into the WP:MALPLACED work queue. wbm1058 (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. It is also a nonstarter to merge content from articles into disambiguation pages. wbm1058 (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3. The previous outcome was a case of Wikipedia:Deletion by redirection. Some 25 pages link to "Toontown" and if there is nothing for these to link to then the links need to be removed. Granted, there was some WP:OVERLINKing here, but without any links the articles need a nearby link to a related article that explains what "Toontown" is, or perhaps be edited to explain it rather than rely on a link. wbm1058 (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4. The topic is notable and does pass WP:GNG. The Google Books in the early 1990s, following the 1988 release of the film. I don't find the argument that the term fails WP:GNG very convincing, given all these mentions by multiple independent publications. wbm1058 (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

5. I question the need for a disambiguation page at all, as all of the items on the dab are Disney-related, excepting "Toontown", a nickname for Saskatoon which makes it a WP:TWODABS situation that could be handled by a hatnote. I think Disney made this a valid topic for a WP:Broad-concept article – there is a somewhat amorphous relationship between the articles on the disambiguation page. The idea that the article should "Merge with Toontown (disambiguation)" is another nonstarter. We don't merge content into disambiguation pages. This is more an argument for merging the disambiguation into the broad-concept article and deleting Toontown (disambiguation). If this is indeed a valid broad-concept created by Disney, then that negates the need to remove those 25 links to the topic. Also, per Wikipedia:Disambiguation § Partial title matches, Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion or reference. Mickey's Toontown and Toontown Online are distinct-enough names that they probably won't be confused with the one in the Roger Rabbit film – or, if they are essentially variants of the same thing then Toontown should broadly overview them all, as it does. Indeed, Mickey's Toontown and Toontown Online would be WP:summary style subtopics of Toontown, and there would only be a need for separate, more detailed articles on Mickey's Toontown and Toontown Online if there wasn't enough space to cover all three in a single article. wbm1058 (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move Toontown (disambiguation) over top of this. I read over wbm1058's arguments very carefully, but I can't accept any of them. The Google books search presented only lists uses of the word "Toontown" in a series of titles on reviews of the Who Framed Roger Rabbit movie. But, there is no coverage about Toontown independent of the subject - why is Toontown itself notable? Have reviewers compared Toontown to other settings in movies, such as the Death Star? Yes, an absurd comparison, but Death Star is an example of a movie setting that does meet the notability guidelines, much as it needs more citations. And why does it? We have detail about its development and its cultural impact. That's the part that confers the notability because it's the material in reliable sources that is independent of the subject, none of which we have about Toontown. A check of HighBeam Research showed only articles about the other subjects of the DAB page. If Disney did make this a topic for a broad-concept article, where are the sources that show this? Where are discussions from reliable sources about Toontown? If they don't exist, then this is not a notable fiction setting. Red Phoenix ^talk 05:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I read wbm1058's arguments and they haven't convinced me. The argument about what should happen to the page and it contents musn't obscure the most important question: is the article Toontown notable. I still think that it isn't. The Google links contain several duplicates (at least my list) and I didn't find any significant coverage in them, but only mentions without or with very little detail. Sjö (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the question in my mind is: is the area from Who Framed Roger Rabbit notable enough for a stand-alone article separate from the movie? As there are no references, I don't feel that is necessary. The other content here is best handled as part of the DAB page (which can be moved to this location); the content is something of WP:SYNTH. I don't feel like having this article as a pseudo-DAB of "any place where cartoon characters live" is of any value above the existing DAB page at all. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I hear the arguments about the lack of notability, though I don't follow what makes the Death Star notable without a closer examination of that (on the surface, that seems equally not independently notable from the franchise that created it). Following up on the need for coverage independent of the subject, I then wonder about the notability of the Mickey Mouse universe. That article asserts, The term "Mickey Mouse universe" is not officially used by The Walt Disney Company, but it has been used by Disney comics author and animation historian David Gerstein. So, the term becomes "notable" simply because one author and animation historian coined it? Does the author of the term need to be notable himself? I note that the only reference cited for the biography of David Gerstein is his resume. The difference between Toontown and the Mickey Mouse universe is unclear to me, so if notable, perhaps they should be merged – to whatever the most common name for this is. None of the rebuttals to my arguments have addressed my issues with the "merge" and "redirect" !votes. Lack of notability is a valid policy-based rationale, though, so "Delete and move Toontown (disambiguation) over top of this" is a viable outcome, and really the only viable outcome that's been proposed other than my "keep". I would suggest though, that rather than moving to Toontown (version 2), the broad-concept version should move to Toon Town, to clear the page history for the move of the disambiguation version. Then Toon Town can be redirected to the disambiguation, leaving the broad-concept history available for possible merging to an article such as Mickey Mouse universe. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The first think I would respectfully caution you of is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - it is quite possible that the Mickey Mouse universe article has the same problems, and upon looking at it I am concerned it might, especially since it's been tagged for possible OR issues. In regards to Death Star, part of what makes it notable independent of the subject includes that we have sources specifically about Death Star itself, not just Star Wars. We have info about how the Death Star was developed, how it was concepted out and how it was made. We also have information on its cultural impact, not just as a part of Star Wars but as a concept itself. If you can establish that Toontown has such coverage about it, like information about how Toontown was developed or its cultural impact from multiple reliable sources, that would definitely help it to meet the notability guidelines. Hopefully that will give you somewhere to go; it's not my intention to get rid of your hard work if it can be kept in any way in accordance with the policy. I would just rather that we can ensure we are compliant with the policies, and if not, then we would have to go forward with deletion. My appreciation to the admin who has continued to relist this article to allow wbm1058 the opportunity to try to have this article retained. Red Phoenix ^talk 22:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Who Framed Roger Rabbit? as the primary topic. Then add a redirect hatnote from the film article to the dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Who Framed Roger Rabbit? with a question mark is tagged as a misspelling; the article is actually at Who Framed Roger Rabbit. It's actually framed as a statement. Maybe the fictional creature in the Dr. Seuss book Horton Hears a Who! framed Roger; I don't know as I haven't seen the film. Making Who Framed Roger Rabbit the primary topic is also a reasonable outcome; given the apparent consensus that "Toontown" is not independently notable (and I'm not really sure about the notability myself). But I point out that the current version of Who Framed Roger Rabbit introduces Toontown in this sentence "In 1947 Los Angeles, "toons" act in theatrical cartoon shorts as with live-action films; they regularly interact with real people and animals and reside in Toontown." That article doesn't explicitly explain what Toontown is... it relies on readers to click through the link to the topic: "Toontown is the anthropomorphic city where animated cartoon characters, known as Toons, reside.", per the lead sentence. I'd suggest that deletion isn't necessary – simply redirect to Who Framed Roger Rabbit so that at least that lead sentence can be merged into Roger with proper attribution in the edit history. wbm1058 (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand; delete the disambiguation page, as it basically lists variations on the same concept, rather than collecting unrelated topics. If anything, Mickey's Toontown should be merged into this article as a subtopic, as it is clearly derived from the Roger Rabbit Toontown concept. There is untapped literature on the topic. For example, Priscilla Hobbs, Walt’s Utopia: Disneyland and American Mythmaking (2015), p. 189, noting that Roger Rabbit "is more "adult" than the usual Disney fare" with "themes of sex, violence, and innuendo", which Disney addresses by including in its Toontown a Roger Rabbit-themed ride that, while "dark", removes the adult elements (thereby "removing the core of the original film story") and replaces them with a more child-friendly "damsel-in-distress rescue story"). Thom Andersen, in his video essay, "Los Angeles Plays Itself", describes Toontown as a "cartoon version of Chinatown". There is, therefore, more that can be done with respect to the conceptualization and evolution of this as a concept. If this is not kept, it should be merged into Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and section-redirected there. bd2412 T 15:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick question, since you seem to have an understanding of relevant sources; are any of the untapped sources about Toontown or have at least a full section on Toontown, or just make passing mentions? It is good to see there is some information, but the sourcing needs to be in depth or we risk giving WP:UNDUE weight by giving a full article to something that just has a couple of passing mentions in sources about the movie specifically. I'm all for keeping this article if we can show that there are such sources, and that they are reliable. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:53, 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 merge to List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters. Likewise for List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters (chronological). Sandstein 09:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters (geographical)[edit]

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

All of the information in this list is also contained on the main list. Since the list can be sorted, there is no need to keep a separate article. Dolotta (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-

related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters (chronological) back into List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters - easiest way would be to subst the chronological list into the main list, maintaining the two sublists as redirects for history/attribution. Since tables are now sortable, there's no need to maintain two separate lists. ansh 666 07:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dolotta, you seem to have made a mistake in viewing the pages. If you look at List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters, the entire Chronological list is from transcluding List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters (geographical) to that page. Similarly the geographical list is transcluded to the page as well. I did this because the entire page was having difficulty being edited due to technical issues of length, but the split wasn't. And combining the Chronological and Geographical information into a single table led to the information being too wide for one table in all of the browsers I was using. (And yes, I'm using *I* here, the entire setup of these pages was done by myself.)Naraht (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are any current technical issues regarding length -- there are around 1200 pages in article space that are larger than the current size of the three articles combined (see Special:LongPages). That being said, considering how long this article has been around I would be just fine with Ansh666's route of substitute and redirect, if you will. -- Dolotta (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The question to me is 'what does that solve?' And given the split into the two discussions and neither of them is a clean delete, should this be closed as no concensus and the discussion be moved to List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters?Naraht (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete (geographical) and (chronological) as WP:CFORK and Reorganize List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters tables~~ so the first section looks like List of Sigma Phi Epsilon chapters which organizes by state, and Alpha Phi Omega can organize by Regions. "Move national roll number to one of the columns afterwards. Retain the second chronological table where it is arranged by founding date, but shorten it to year (use DTS to retain month and day information while displaying year). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC) updated 16:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF So you would like them merged back to the same page, but the Geographic one should be split into 11 different tables. And the chronological table (which is larger), the only change would be to reduce the displayed information, but in a manner that would increase the amount of raw code? Note the split was done in the first place to avoid a WP:PAGESIZE issue.Naraht (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend retaining the single table and simplifying it. WP:FRAT has {{FratChapter}} or {{FratChapter2}} templates that can be used. While the template itself may be clunky, they do show which columns are commonly presented, and those seem only to care that the group is currently active or not, and not their entire active/inactive history, although that could be added to the Notes column. The geographic one is only useful if there are plans to show the 11 regions on a map or if the chapters are logically divided by state. Sorting by founding year or national roll number is also already accommodated by the main list. I noticed that that the roll number presented and the founding date doesn't always line up but can be sorted nevertheless. You'll notice on their website, they just list a single table and not worry about geographical, leaving that to be a sortable key. Alumni chapters and other types of chapters are presented separately. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I considered both when constructing the table and rejected them since they didn't contain all of the appropriate information that I had. And given that {{FratChapter2}} only has a single usage, it doesn't seem like a standard. (And if they would be counted as a standard, that should be looked at in WP:FRAT, not here, I believe). The chapters are not logically divided by state, either in the current Regional/Sectional structure which was for the most part put into place in 1967, and the new one which will be put into place in 2018. For example, SUNY-Buffalo and CUNY aren't in the same region in either setup. I *believe* the last time they were in the same part of the organizational structure was in the 1950s. Yes, the founding date and the roll number don't always line up, but with two exceptions which I can go further into, they are close. Both are currently sortable, I believe. And given that the national Alpha Phi Omega website has changed the software and output of the list of active chapters twice since the wikipedia article was created, I'm not sure that is useful. (Also, without additional work, accessing the inactive chapters there is painful.) I don't know if you noticed, but the website list of active chapters is nowhere listed as a reference. (The national magazine, the torch and trefoil, OTOH, is.) As for whether a map of regions or sections should be shown, I'm open to it.Naraht (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, none of your suggestions seem to deal with the original proposal for deletion which I still believe to be a misread of the duplication between the pages caused by one of them being transcluded into the other.Naraht (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to rename/move the geographical and chronological to the template mainspace as they aren't really articles in themselves. They are more like those family trees or character tables. Having them as actual separate articles just screams of content fork. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did not consider that, but would quite willingly do so if it would straighten things out.Naraht (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, now that I understand why you were talking about transclusions, that would simplify things. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff)

So what now?Naraht (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updating vote to Move to Template:List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters (geographical) The original AFD was because of the content fork which is now restructured to not be a problem. Dolotta is that okay? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: that doesn't really solve anything, just converts them into redundant templates instead of duplicate articles. ansh 666 18:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ansh666. -- Dolotta (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be up to Naraht to make the two tables different enough to keep separate. If the entries have the same columns, then yes, that's redundant and should be removed. Regardless, the original article names aren't needed. I don't think we need the region and section numbers. But what might be more interesting is getting together a pinpoint map of the chapters. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC) updated 22:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The common columns are number, chapter and school. Those seem to me to be the key indexes for a chapter. The primary question is with those indexes and without the region and section, is there any reason for the Geographic at all? I'm not sure what data would be needed for a pinpoint map of all 300 active chapters, much less the 700 chapters in total.Naraht (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think there's a need for a separate geographic if the main list does its job. If anyone's interested in constructing the map, they would need the GPS coordinates and a United States map; they can look at List_of_Kalyeserye_episodes#Map_of_episodes for sample entries and use Module:Location map/data/United States of America, looking up the GPS for all the colleges. That's a lot of work though, and if we're the only ones putting it together, could be original research. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge and use table sorting so readers can arrange the data as they need. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems like the best option.^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merge per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Use table sorting/collapsing to keep the appearance neat. Blue Riband► 17:36, 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 redirect to United States Senate election in Maine, 2018#Democratic primary. Consensus to not keep, no consensus to delete outright, so redirect it is. Sandstein 09:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zak Ringelstein[edit]

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

Candidate for US Senate without significant, independent coverage. Not that it should matter, but though Ringelstein is the Democratic nominee, he is very unlikely to win the seat against a popular Independent incumbent and thus we don't have to worry about having to recreate it anytime soon. TM 12:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the election article. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Senate election in Maine, 2018 as a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates to the US Senate (and other candidates for federal office). Any details about the campaign can be added to the election page. --Enos733 (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the creator of the page. I created it because I believed, and continue to believe, that the sum total of coverage of Ringelstein, including his technology career, his U.S. Senate campaign, his country music flirtation, and his arrest in Texas, qualifies him as notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Whether or not he qualifies strictly as a politician (and I am unsure if he does or doesn't), he qualifies under WP: BASIC.

In a broader argument that is less grounded in strict Wikipedia policy, Ringelstein's inclusion in Wikipedia serves the interest of the public. Interest in Wikipedia articles about politicians surges in advance of an election, and it is reasonable to conclude that voters are using Wikipedia as a resource in deciding who to vote for. Ringelstein is one of three candidates for a United States Senate seat, and while he faces long odds against a popular and well-known incumbent, it seems only reasonable to err on the side of inclusion when considering this matter. Voters in Maine will inevitably seek out information about King, Brakey, and Ringelstein on Wikipedia, and unless there is a strongly compelling reason not to provide it, we should.OnAcademyStreet (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a voter guide or at least is not intended as one. Our primary purpose is to have encyclopedic content that meets existing criteria. It is quite clear that Ringelstein does not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN as he currently does not hold a political office(unlike King and Brakey who each do). If you want to change the notability criteria so that merely being a US Senate candidate(or any political candidate) merits one an article, you are free to start that discussion- although I don't think you would get consensus as it would open a big door to anyone claiming to be running for any office to get an article. 331dot (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also would not describe Ringelstein as a "major local political figure" (the other NPOLITICIAN criteria) as he has not held any political office or even been active enough in local politics prior to his US Senate run to merit extensive media coverage. I don't know if his business and teaching careers have been covered enough at this point, but that can always come later. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins. If this were enough media coverage to deem an unelected candidate as passing GNG and therefore exempted from having to pass NPOL, then we would always have to keep an article about every candidate in every election everywhere because they always get this much campaign coverage or more. It is not Wikipedia's role to be a comprehensive voter education guide to every candidate in an election — that's Ballotpedia's job, while our job is to have encyclopedia articles about holders of office. Candidates get articles without winning first in two specific situations — either they already cleared a notability standard for some other reason independent of the candidacy, such as having already held another notable office (e.g. Hillary Clinton) or already being notable in some other field (e.g. Cynthia Nixon), or the coverage of them explodes so far beyond what's merely expected to exist that there's a credible case to be made that their candidacy is special somehow (e.g. Christine O'Donnell). But neither of those conditions appears to be true here. Bearcat (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN. No independent notability outside candidature. --RaviC (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge any important information per our policy with otherwise non-notable candidates. SportingFlyer talk 21:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates for public office are not default notable for such. Short of that being the case, nothing makes Ringlestein notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Zak Ringelstein would qualify for a Wikipedia page even if he was not running for U.S. Senate, due to his notability in business and advocacy. He received extensive coverage when his company "United Classrooms" was acquired by Rennaisance Learning, followed by a lawsuit filed by Ringelstein against the company. He has received wide attention as an education advocate on platforms like the New York Time, Forbes, and TEDx. Ringelstein also got wide coverage from mainstream media for his humanitarian mission to the Texas border detention centers and the arrest that followed. The U.S. Senate race where Ringelstein is the Democratic nominee is also more noteworthy than an average political campaign, as it is the first federal race in U.S. history that will be decided through a Ranked Choice Voting system, giving each of the candidates more notability. Ringelstein would be sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia page aside from anything to do with his candidacy for U.S. Senate. He should not be prevented from having a page just because he is a candidate. User:207maine (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The method of the election has no bearing on the notability of the candidates. Please offer any of the sources you have about his business career. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per above points. ALPolitico (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT based on the editing history of this article and Draft:Zak_Ringelstein. A redirect will merely result in the article being quickly re-created by his fan. This should be salted until at least after the election. The subject fails notability guidelines, and WP is not free advertising space for election campaigns. No redirect is necessary as anyone looking for this politician can search and find him mentioned in United States Senate election in Maine, 2018, as his name is uncommon. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Received recent substantial coverage for his arrest and endorsement by Democratic Socialists. I would expect coverage to only grow with time. Also, as per above, received coverage for his notability in business and advocacy. Definitely doesn't fail WP:POLITICIAN as notability isn't restricted to candidature. Luftfall (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If he wasn't a US Senate candidate, his arrest would have gotten zero coverage.(He demanded entry to the border facility as a US Senate candidate.) An endorsement from a group on the left is also meaningless unless one is a candidate. Coverage that flows from his candidacy shouldn't count. Please offer any of the sources you have about his business career. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 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. Three of the five "keep" opinions make no sense in terms of our policies and guidelines, or indeed at all. Sandstein 09:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? top prize winners[edit]

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

WP:LISTCRUFT table of all top prize winners on various franchises of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? Notes field contains trivia such as "Last winner since 200x", "Nth winner", etc. Any contestants who meet WP:N on their own have an individual article. AldezD (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—There's no debate that there are sources for some of the individual episodes on which the top prize has been won (although there are several dozen unsourced entries), but there are no sources about the topic of top prize winners treated as a whole. This idea is also wrapped up in that a list of contestants would probably not be viable under the WP:BLP1E rules. AldezD (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page must be not deleted it. And Notes is fine. Marik-modder (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This wikipedia Page must be saved. If we get for example new top-prize where we add a player, version and date?

Vincent1995 (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not every game show winner is notable and we certainly don't need to list every single on of them on all regional variants of the game. Also the arguments posted above by @Marik-modder and @Vincent1995 fit more into the category WP:ILIKEIT and offer no real reason against deletion. Ajf773 (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.TH1980 (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Ajf773. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 05:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question to you (talk if we get for example top prize winner. Where do you think we add him/her? Marik-modder (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a notable topic, with winners referenced with reliable sources. The notes/trivia field should probably go, but major winners of this program are a notable subject and is too large to cover in the parent article Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This, to my opinion, does not fit any of the points listed on WP:LISTCRUFT, which AldezD pointed to as the reason for deletion. Who Wants To Be A Millionaire is a world-wide phenomenon and one of the oldest and most popular game shows to still run in countless countries in the world; winning the top-prize is a rare-enough occurence to decidedly be notable. This is not a list that exists solely for the sake of having it; in less-popular, less-known game shows, top prize winners are certainly notable enough to be listed on that show's article. This list, however, due to the sheer number of national variants, is far too large to be contained in an article about the show itself. I don't know why this information, solely because the list happens to be long, is any less notable than any other top prize winner information in any other article. Or is AldezD going to scour through every single game show article and remove the list of top prize winners from it? To me, this looks like a rather arbitrary deletion request. --Pascal40 (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, a prior AfD has failed against this article. For additional arguments for keep, see the archived discussion. I do not see how this content might have gotten any less relevant with time, as, if anything, the show only grew in that time. Pascal40 (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:LISTCRUFT (and, effectively, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA). The list might be salvageable if it was trimmed to just the top prizewinner in each country, but even that is probably an unnecessary article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For me this page must be saved not Deleted it. I can say why, The top prize winners are rarerly trying to win top prize and also old versions are returned + Coming soon 2 new versions they might be have new winners. So This page must be Saved

MaxFinkerBerg1945-2018 (talk) 11:54, 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. See edit by nominator (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remzi Aydın Jöntürk[edit]

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

Not notable or reliably sourced in any way. The only sources on the article are IMDB and Pakistan Defense. A Google search yielded nothing. His films don't even seem notable because half of them don't have pages on Wikipedia or even IMDB. Clearly not notable in the least. Ducktech89 (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My own google search turned up six pages of mentions in Google Books, and several mentions in Google News. Additionally, anyone who has directed that many films has had press coverage. It's a question of finding it and understanding the language it is written in. He's mentioned in Turkish (I presume) here, in German here, Turkish here, Turkish again, and so on. 96.127.242.226 (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I find it highly doubtful that these sources would be sufficent to be save this article from being extremely unequipped with reliability --- Ducktech89 ^(talk), 3:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

What is wrong with those sources? Also, I am unclear as to why my Google search turn up dozens of mentions and the three sources mentioned above, but when you did it, "a Google search yielded nothing"? There is clearly lots of material out there. He has also directed 60 Turkish films, which makes him notable via "a significant contribution to the field" of WP:NARTIST. Just because you heve never heard of him does not mean he is not notable. 96.127.242.226 (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added about a dozen sources to the article. They are mostly mentions of his work and filmography entries, or in this case, a bio on the Center for Turkish Film Studies site. He is frequently mentioned in these sources as an important and notable Turkish filmmaker.96.127.242.226 (talk) 07:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anything relating to his death? That seems to be very enigmatic. If we can get reliable sources about all aspects of his life and work, I will consider cancelling the AFD. -- Ducktech89 ^(talk), 8:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Survivor: Worlds Apart#Contestants. Sandstein 09:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shirin Oskooi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Shirin Oskooi (2nd nomination)

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

It was a redirect for a long time which was several days ago converted to an article. I do not see why she is notable (all references only confirm her participation in the Survivor), but let us discuss. Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently someone created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirin Oskooi earlier today but did not transclude it properly.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, possibly delete We should not have articles on random reality show contestants. If the other contestants have articles that redirect to the instalment of Survivor that they appeared in, then her article should be a redirect as well. It is clear that she fails to meet the requirements of the general notability guideline. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, restore to redirect. Flat Out (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Also, WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE, which if still appearing in red ink it's not for lack of trying. -The Gnome (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails every related guideline. The only coverage in given sources is about her being a participant on that show and as a result the entire article is just a couple factoids related to that. North8000 (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect subject is not notable. Sro23 (talk) 23:32, 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 09:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Clizbe[edit]

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

Typical of WP:BIO1E, the subject of this article became briefly (though far from widely) known, for ostensibly helping expose Fox News guest commentator and self-proclaimed "CIA operative," Wayne Simmons, as a fraud. No sources extending beyond this episode were found, if one discards blogs (e.g. this) and the Daily Mail (i.e. here). Reuters did not even mention Clizbe in its Simmons trial news report. The Gnome (talk) 09:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the record the low notability news commentator who is key to the odd way Clizbe is claimed to have a little notability is almost certainly not notable either, but Clizbe is clearly not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Panayotis Doumas[edit]

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

Very highly promotional article for official in a minor political party that has not yet won a single seat in parliament. Entirely devoted to promoting the party's policies---but we already have an article for the party. DGG ( talk ) 09:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, on account of subject failing WP:NPOLITICIAN. -The Gnome (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. Not sources about him with in-depht coverage. On the other hand, the party he belongs is a minor, and rather obscure political organisation. ——Chalk19 (talk) 16:20, 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) 20:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sunteck Realty[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet current NCORP requirements--references are either PR or notices, and the firm is not large enough for any presumption of importance. DGG ( talk ) 09:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was going to send to Afd when it was listed at coin, but now looking at it a second time, I think it is more or less a duplicate of the Bloomberg listing, and has little encyclopædic value. Fails WP:CORP. scope_creep (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Busy, busy, busy. -The Gnome (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GOLDENRULE. Accesscrawl (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, and fails to establish why it has a claim to encyclopedia notability; just another run of the mill company bereft of significance, at the moment at least.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article is about a publicly listed real estate company, founded by an Indian billionaire (as per Forbes list 2009 and 2010) which clearly meets WP:NCORP, WP:LISTED. It has received significant media coverage in mainstream media houses in India and also covered by The New York Times, Forbes and Fortune (magazine) that makes the article meets WP:GNG, WP:BASIC. And undoubtedly meets WP:NCORP. Performing Google News and HighBeam has huge media coverage.--Eramritasharma (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Eramritasharma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Disagree. The majority of delete votes mention NCORP, not GNG, as the company has accrued some coverage. The main issues is that NCORP and CORPDEPTH need to be met with in-depth, independent coverage, which the article lacks. Stories noting that "Sunteck buys X stake in company Y", "Q4 profits rise for Sunteck by X percentage" or "Market A bodes well for company (Sunteck) B" are not in-depth coverage, even if they come from reliable sources. In addition, it is hard to see how a company with a revenue of $140 million is notable enough for an encyclopedia.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NCORP, no evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:CANVASSING by User:Eramritasharma: [22] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, editing pattern and canvassing suggest that Eramritasharma has a COI and probably an undeclared paid editor Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 06:47, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrrellspass GAA[edit]

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

Delete. The article seems to be about a minor club which cannot be considered notable enough to warrant an article. The article was created by a blocked user who created numerous articles about niche subjects, many of them with little or no verification. The same rationale applies to each of the other three sports clubs I am adding to this AFD (see below). Izzat Kutebar (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the following three articles for deletion too. They all concern minor sports clubs and were created by the same blocked user:

Please let me know if I need to do anything more as I am still getting used to this bundling process. Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These clubs are notable. Izzat is being overly enthusiastic in seeking for their deletion. Their creator was banned for persistently creating family biographies but that doesn't mean all his/her contributions to Wikipedia weren't worthwhile. I think the three sources I was easily able to find and add demonstrates that Izzat did not do a BEFORE. Finnegas (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Finnegas (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Checking out WP:NSPORTS, I read it is not intended that this guideline should apply to sports clubs and teams; for these, the specific notability guideline is WP:ORG, yet in WP:ORG I read this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of sports teams. -The Gnome (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: Intriguing, is it not? As I mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actors of the World, another similar and confusing loop exists between NORG and NBIO. WP:NORG: This guideline does not cover small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people). But WP:NBIO leaves "entertainment groups" out of the footnote to the lead, saying: "While this guideline also pertains to small groups of closely related people such as families, co-authors, and co-inventors, it does not cover groups of unrelated people, which are covered by the notability guideline for organizations and companies." and WP:ENT does not seem to cover groups. Sam Sailor 15:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh). I've taken it upstairs. -The Gnome (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:GNG? The article has two sources from RTÉ which is Ireland's national broadcaster. In addition, if you look at Izzat's edits you'll see he has nominated other articles for deletion in a similar fashion and similar grounds and they've been kept. Finnegas (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Firstly, other stuff in Wikipedia is of no concern here; policy is. Secondly, an editor can be behaving "badly" in general, yet we are obliged to assess AfDs on the basis of arguments. Thirdly, is WP:GNG on its own enough? Local, specialist, and national media will always have reports about small clubs in small communities. As far as I'm concerned, I dearly wish we could include the darling lot of them in Wikipedia, since, as it happens, I'm quite an acolyte of amateur and lower division sports. My long suffering library can attest to that! But policy suggests, though quite murkily as I note above, that notability is lacking. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 06:40, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Pacific Northwest heat wave[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of weather reports and temperature readings. No significant effects of the heat wave documented by sources. Hence not notable WP:SYNTH. — JFG ^talk 08:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Full AfD list of non-notable heat waves:[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1906 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1955 United Kingdom heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983 British Isles heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1990 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1995 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 European heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 North America South and Eastern heatwave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Western North American heat wave (2nd nomination): N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Pacific Northwest heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late 2009 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Southwestern United States heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2014 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 South-Eastern Australian heatwave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Swedish heat wave: Y Kept; should be expanded and renamed 2014 Scandinavian heat wave
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 American Northeast heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Southern Europe heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April 2018 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Eastern Canada heat wave: Merged
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 North American heat wave: No consensus

Thanks for participating. — JFG ^talk 11:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) — Last updated 19:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:08, 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) 10:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of poor sourcing, especially for an ostensibly notable meteorological event. -The Gnome (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not need a Wikipedia article on every time some weather records are broken. Lasting notability not established. Reywas92^Talk 21:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. A heat wave is not automatically notable just because you can list a bunch of record high temperatures — a heat wave has to have significant and sustained effects that generate ongoing coverage beyond just routine weather reports. Bearcat (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into List of heat waves. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

We could merge this text, yes, but only if we can find a policy that permits inadequately sourced text to be moved around in Wikipedia rather than deleted. -The Gnome (talk) 07:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as wikipedia is more then big enough to be anything one can imagine. A user should be able to use this gold mine to search through heatwaves and record events that are historical in nature. Why not? Matthurricane (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. You may well argue to keep the contested article but not on a basis that runs contrary to Wikipedia policy! Wikipedia is explicitly NOT a "goldmine" of "anything one can imagine". There are specific criteria for the subject of a WP article. It must be, for starters, and above all else, verifiably notable. Wikipedia is not constructed by what I or you know and believe but on the basis of sources. -The Gnome (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is evidence that this particular heat wave is the subject of coverage, and that it is significant. It is the basis for a new understanding of climate change and heat waves in the region: [23][24] This heat wave is cited as part of a cultural shift in the region that had previously not widely used air conditioners.[25][26]. The problems with indiscriminate statistics and such are fixable. The data can be consolidated or reformatted, or otherwise summarized in a more encyclopedic way. I'd probably put it into an infographic of some kind, and collapse the crosstab. There's various ways of cleaning that up, not germane to AfD. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not forget that we editors are not the ones who will "consolidate" or "reformat" data, because that would be quite blatantly original work. We need others, i.e. third-party, secondary, independent sources, to do the "consolidating" and the "reformatting", which we then may post up in an article. As to the references you cited, they are about something else (e.g. air conditioners!) and mention as an aside the prevalent high temperatures. Note, in this context, that in the popular media the word "heat wave" is used indiscriminately and without any concern at all about accuracy or relevancy. -The Gnome (talk) 07:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia supports several templates that generate graphs from tabular data. Or images of info graphs can be uploaded to Commons. Your assertion that summarizing data is original research is found nowhere in WP:NOR, because it’s not. In fact, what I said is the same as the policy WP:NOTSTATS. Even if the statistics can’t be presented in some other format, the article can be cleaned up by simply deleting the tables. Nothing here is a reason to delete. I’ve cited reliable sources saying that the topic is notable. That’s the only thing that matters at AfD. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. I should have been much clearer. I will repeat in hopefully clearer terms.

Wikipedia does allow us to produce graphs and upload images, indeed, Dennis Bratland. I know that since, after all, I have done my share of uploading graphs. But what we are NOT meant to do is, again, the interpretation of the data. We are NOT allowed to gather data about, say, the weather and proclaim, on our own, that they indicate some kind of specific type of weather, e.g. "mild," "extreme", a "heat wave," etc. We can go into graphic representation to the extent Wikipedia permits, yes, but the interpretation is off limits. (WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTADVOCACY, and so on) -The Gnome (talk) 07:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing that really surpasses an ordinary heat wave in the current sourcing or discussion above. Breaking a few records isn't the bar that will satisfy GNG on this subject. It looks like a pretty standard heat wave from reading the article sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:10, 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) 20:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Southwestern United States heat wave[edit]

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

Another WP:SYNTH compilation of ordinary summer weather reports. Zero notability in hindsight. WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of local temperature records. — JFG ^talk 08:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Full AfD list of non-notable heat waves:[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1906 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1955 United Kingdom heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983 British Isles heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1990 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1995 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 European heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 North America South and Eastern heatwave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Western North American heat wave (2nd nomination): N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Pacific Northwest heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late 2009 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Southwestern United States heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2014 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 South-Eastern Australian heatwave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Swedish heat wave: Y Kept; should be expanded and renamed 2014 Scandinavian heat wave
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 American Northeast heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Southern Europe heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April 2018 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Eastern Canada heat wave: Merged
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 North American heat wave: No consensus

Thanks for participating. — JFG ^talk 11:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) — Last updated 19:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:11, 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) 10:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The text contains literally zero references. -The Gnome (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not need a Wikipedia article on every time some weather records are broken. Lasting notability from local events not established. Reywas92^Talk 21:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Keep or merge into List of heat waves. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Of course, the weather will garner some WP:ROUTINE news reports. However, what determines notability is sustained coverage and LASTING significance. That has evidently not found here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As mentioned, the sources are all routine reporting on weather, and everything in the sources and article don't point to this as a severe heat wave rather than a regular one. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:12, 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) 20:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2016 American Northeast heat wave[edit]

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

This is just ordinary summer weather, with anecdotal sources from a single day. Zero notability. — JFG ^talk 08:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Full AfD list of non-notable heat waves:[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1906 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1955 United Kingdom heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983 British Isles heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1990 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1995 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 European heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 North America South and Eastern heatwave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Western North American heat wave (2nd nomination): N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Pacific Northwest heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late 2009 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Southwestern United States heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2014 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 South-Eastern Australian heatwave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Swedish heat wave: Y Kept; should be expanded and renamed 2014 Scandinavian heat wave
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 American Northeast heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Southern Europe heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April 2018 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Eastern Canada heat wave: Merged
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 North American heat wave: No consensus

Thanks for participating. — JFG ^talk 11:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) — Last updated 19:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:23, 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) 10:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:23, 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) 10:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. According to this article, no records were broken. Newslinger (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks the scope and sourcing to demonstrate that this is a notable event and nothing else turns up in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject lacking verifiable notability. Where are the sources? At some point we should be able to distinguish serious reporting from the summer silly season. -The Gnome (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not need a Wikipedia article on every time some weather records are broken. Lasting notability from local events not established. Reywas92^Talk 21:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Keep or merge into List of heat waves. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing that really surpasses an ordinary heat wave in the current sourcing (even less than similar deleted articles). Breaking a few records isn't the bar that will satisfy GNG on this subject. You generally need a severe heat wave that causes widespread blackouts, death (beyond a handful of people already vulnerable to heat exposure), etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:04, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 North American heat wave[edit]

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

Smells of WP:SYNTH: compilation of several regional weather reports to claim a global heat wave for North America. Most sources are routine weather reports for summer, peppered with a couple of sensationalist headlines. List of record temperatures in various locations is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — JFG ^talk 08:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Full AfD list of non-notable heat waves:[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1906 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1955 United Kingdom heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983 British Isles heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1990 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1995 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 European heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 North America South and Eastern heatwave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Western North American heat wave (2nd nomination): N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Pacific Northwest heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late 2009 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Southwestern United States heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2014 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 South-Eastern Australian heatwave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Swedish heat wave: Y Kept; should be expanded and renamed 2014 Scandinavian heat wave
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 American Northeast heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Southern Europe heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April 2018 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Eastern Canada heat wave: Merged
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 North American heat wave: No consensus

Thanks for participating. — JFG ^talk 11:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) — Last updated 19:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: 2018 North American heat wave was nominated a week ago by the same user at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 North American heat wave. The result was no consensus. Newslinger (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd like the community to evaluate each of these seasonal "heat wave" articles on its merits. Elevating routine weather to heat wave status does a disservice to readers. Too early to tell if 2018 will have long-term significance. 2016 had not, and the 2017 article looks like manufacturing a "North American heat wave" out of various local reports. SYNTH and MILL indeed. — JFG ^talk 09:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge into List of heat waves#2010–present.~~ This article combines local news events, each of which is individually non-notable, into a single article. To be notable, the article would need secondary sources that evaluate the heat wave across North America as a whole and demonstrate that it is notably unusual from heat waves that occur every summer. Unlike the 2018 article, this 2017 article no longer documents a current event, and I'm unable to find sources showing that this is anything other than a run-of-the-mill heat wave. Newslinger (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The grounded flights are already mentioned in List of heat waves#2010–present, so a merge is not necessary. A redirect is inappropriate, since the article is not properly named (as it only mentions events in the United States). Newslinger (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:24, 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) 10:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - Many temperature records were set in this heat wave. If the article can not be kept, it should be merged with history in tact to List of heat waves, but not deleted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inadequately sourced text is not to be merged or moved around Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Irrespective of what happens in this AfD, the article's title is misleading, at least the way it's written. If we make the distinction with "Central America", then "North America" is Canada, the U.S., and Mexico; yet the text is about only one country out of the three - and no guesses about which one. The title should clearly denote that the text is about only U.S. regions. -The Gnome (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of WP:TOOSOON. Meteo events are scientific events, and, as such, are not to be assessed by the popular press. At best, Merge into a list, although that would not be kosher either, yet. -The Gnome (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not need a Wikipedia article on every time some weather records are broken. Lasting notability from local events not established. Reywas92^Talk 21:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. A heat wave is not automatically notable just because you can list a bunch of record high temperatures — a heat wave has to have significant and sustained effects that generate ongoing coverage beyond just routine weather reports. Bearcat (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For the first time in a long time, airplanes could not take off due to low air density. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. This was far from "the first time in a long time." Five years ago, in 2013, "eighteen US Airways flights scheduled to take off from Phoenix were cancelled as temperatures reached 48.3 C (119 F)," per sample source. -The Gnome (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a routine situation in aviation: see Hot and high. — JFG ^talk 13:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing that really surpasses an ordinary heat wave in the current sourcing. Breaking a few records isn't the bar that will satisfy GNG on this subject. You generally need a severe heat wave that causes widespread blackouts, death (beyond a handful of people already vulnerable to heat exposure), etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:03, 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. Sandstein 09:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gifyu.com[edit]

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

Non-notable image hosting site; all sources are in-house, promotional, user-contributed, or listings. Not brutally promotional as these articles go, but falls short of any notability requirement. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. No coverage from reliable sources. Search results reveal "for sale" listings which claimed that the site had an Alexa rank of 61,459 in 2016. Today, the site's Alexa rank is 119,608, which makes it even less notable than it was in 2016. Newslinger (talk) 09:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, its most notable point would be what warrants it inclusion. Obviously if it has never been notable, that would be irrelevant Nosebagbear (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was unable to find any coverage from reliable sources. Let me strike out the Alexa rank if it's not relevant. Newslinger (talk) 10:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gifyu.com article should not be deleted for the following reason.

Has an Alexa rank of 119,608 ^[1]
A wide range of users including academics from top universities have used Gifyu ^[2]
Top companies like Glock Inc has used Gifyu.com links on their official Twitter page^[3]
Leading food delvery service like HelloFresh has used Gifyu for their content hosting.^[4]
Often used by users on Tech communities run on Microsoft.com.^[5]
Listed on first page for search "GIF Upload" on Google.^[6]
Over 6K backlinks from Twitter users.^[7]

--gifyu (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Alexa rank". Alexa.com.
^ "University" (PDF).
^ "Glock Twitter".
^ "HelloFresh".
^ "Microsoft".
^ "Google".
^ "Twitter".

Thank you for this extraordinary demonstration of complete misunderstanding of notability requirements as presented by an editor with a whopping conflict of interest. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added WP:COI notices to Gifyu.com, Talk:Gifyu.com, and User talk:Tharun518. — Newslinger talk 13:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tharun518: Sorry for mentioning the Alexa rank earlier, since that isn't the right way to determine whether a website is notable. Please refer to WP:WEBCRIT instead. Newslinger (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 10:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the given sources are not independent reliable sources (see WP:RS), or provide only passing mentions and listings (reliable detailed coverage is needed). As already mentioned above, the requirements for "notability" in Wikipedia's sense of the term are not met (see WP:GNG for the basic criteria). A Google search did not reveal any other promising possible sources. GermanJoe (talk) 10:57, 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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jodense Valenciano[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Please note that this article was already deleted multiple times and was even semi-protected to keep new accounts to recreate this article. After this article was reposted last July 7, it was already nominated for CSD twice, one as a repost article and one as a non-notable biography. The admins have rejected the CSD twice so I'm bringing this article to undergo another AFD process. If you read the article closely, the only claim to fame of Jodense Valenciano is that he is a supposed nephew of Filipino artist Gary Valenciano. Other than that, the contents of the article reads only as an autobiography. The list of shows indicated that Jodense Valenciano supposed to appear are hoaxes. Further search in Google reveals a Twitter account of this "artist" (https://twitter.com/ultimatechance2) and claims that he is a "special child" as per his account bio. Also, if you noticed, the creator of this article User:Jodense is possibly also "Jodense Valenciano" himself as per his username. -WayKurat (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at the latest tomorrow on July 14, and salt the earth (obvious exceptions for RS evidence of notability / unblock). There was already a BLPPROD on the article, and this AFD would ordinarily extend this through to July 20. No evidence found to support claims of notability, WP:G11 is close enough to applying, and WP:G5 is possible. See Jodense_Valenciano_(Philippine_actor), Jodense_Valenciano_(actor), Jodense_Valenciano_(singer). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete per WP:G4 and WP:G11; and salt.~~ Absolutely no news coverage. The username of the article creator ("Jodense") strongly suggests WP:SPIP. Newslinger (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt, since speedy delete criteria don't apply. Newslinger (talk) 10:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:COI notices have been added to Talk:Jodense Valenciano and User talk:Jodense. Newslinger (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I, too, cannot find any coverage at all. G4 does not apply unfortunately since there was no previous AFD deletion and the article is almost completely different. Same with G5, from the pages alone one cannot reasonably assume that the previous article was created by the same person, although it's likely. G11 does not apply since the text of the article is not overly promotional and G11 does not cover intent. That said, WP:SNOW deletion is entirely possible if consensus is evident before the seven day period is over. Regards So Why 10:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, since subject fails WP:NACTOR. The top hat with the list of article infractions looks larger than the article itself. Someone tried to serve this up many times before so pass the salt, please. -The Gnome (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt The topic of this article fails to meet the standards that are outlined in the general notability guideline. Also, this article fails to give any citations for its various claims. In finality, this article has been recreated multiple times; this article should be protected from any further attempts to recreate it. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 08:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is this considered a hoax? I believe the reason for deletion is solely due to reposting and lack of notability. ShangKing (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The movies and show listed in the "Filmography" while they exist in real life, Jodense Valenciano did not appear on all of them, unless someone can provide a screencap that he did really appeared on those movies and shows. -WayKurat (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can an admin close this AFD? All of the users that have commented on this article are in favor of deleting this article and salting it, meanwhile User:Jodense keeps on adding "fixes" on the article and not addressing the WP:NOTABILITY issue. Also, would it be possible if the creator of this article will be blocked as well due to WP:COI? -WayKurat (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
COI is not in itself a reason for blocking. Regards So Why 10:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, fails...everything. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:05, 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 delete. Consensus is that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Fraser (psychic)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article for professional entertainer. I don't think any of the rating his his very specialized branch shows notability, he has appeared in various shows but never had a show of his own, The references are the usual promotional garbage, or mere announcements. DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. No coverage from reliable sources. It doesn't look like anything has changed since 2013, which is when this article was last deleted. Newslinger (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per nomination. Subject does not meet WP:GNG. No, WP:CRYSTALBALL does not apply here! -The Gnome (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fringe subjects and indivduals require high quality coverage, and that is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:24, 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. Randykitty (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2015 North American heat wave[edit]

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

Not a significant heat wave. Related wildfires are treated in their own articles. List of record temperatures in various locations is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — JFG ^talk 08:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Full AfD list of non-notable heat waves:[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1906 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1955 United Kingdom heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983 British Isles heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1990 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1995 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 European heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 North America South and Eastern heatwave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Western North American heat wave (2nd nomination): N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Pacific Northwest heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late 2009 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Southwestern United States heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2014 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 South-Eastern Australian heatwave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Swedish heat wave: Y Kept; should be expanded and renamed 2014 Scandinavian heat wave
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 American Northeast heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Southern Europe heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April 2018 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Eastern Canada heat wave: Merged
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 North American heat wave: No consensus

Thanks for participating. — JFG ^talk 11:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) — Last updated 19:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Merge into List of heat waves#2010–present. My explanation from the nomination for the 2017 article applies:

This article combines local news events, each of which is individually non-notable, into a single article. To be notable, the article would need secondary sources that evaluate the heat wave across North America as a whole and demonstrate that it is notably unusual from heat waves that occur every summer. Unlike the 2018 article, this 2015 article no longer documents a current event, and I'm unable to find sources showing that this is anything other than a run-of-the-mill heat wave.

Newslinger (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We do not need a Wikipedia article on every time some weather records are broken. Lasting notability from local events not established. Reywas92^Talk 21:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. A heat wave is not automatically notable just because you can list a bunch of record high temperatures — a heat wave has to have significant and sustained effects that generate ongoing coverage beyond just routine weather reports. Bearcat (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Keep or merge into List of heat waves. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Lack of adequate sourcing precludes moving text around. We do not merge inadequately sourced text to articles; we throw it out. -The Gnome (talk) 07:19, 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 09:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pairaphrase[edit]

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

Article about a software product; the cited sources are written by the seller or look like barely revised PR releases, and a look in Google News suggests that little that's better is available. Hoary (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. The Xconomy reference in the article is one source, but I'm unable to find any others. Newslinger (talk) 10:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSOFT and slightly promotional. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:44, 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 09:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen Bhat[edit]

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

Article is horribly sourced, with the only Google News results I could find ("Praveen Bhat" photographer) being name-drops. I've already removed the entire Career section as being little more than a list of clients and unsourced assertions and what remains really doesn't stand on its own with whatever sources I can find. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 06:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject failing WP:NCREATIVE. Nice pic, though. -The Gnome (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Marcisloboy, the current article doesn't actually say why the subject is notable. Please expand it to explain that and it may have a chance of not being deleted. Accesscrawl (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is they were expecting the list of celebrities he's taken pictures of to be proof of notability in and of itself, given that such a list was the entire Career section. Even if I hadn't removed it (such lists generally serve no purpose but to promote) I still would have sent the article to AfD. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 16:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, can't see anything beyond name-drops. Fails WP:CREATIVE and falls under WP:NOTINHERITED. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:42, 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 09:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sultana Yeasmin Laila[edit]

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

She won a singing competition.Nothing more, nothing less.No significant coverage outside of a BLP1E perspective. ∯WBG^converse 06:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NMUSIC. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator fails WP:MUSICBIO. Fit India 10:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NSINGER. We had SPAs; now we seem to have camo SPAs. They never sleep. -The Gnome (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing discussion about editor integrity, unrelated to the AfD. -The Gnome (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Self-defence[edit]

To the honorable wikipidian :@Winged Blades of Godric:, :@Fitindia: Firstly I want to say sorry cause there was a typo to add the Record Labels and the label was not listed in the Lists of record labels. It has now fixed up. I am strongly agree with you that this people who is relates to this content has no significant coverage outside of a BLP1E perspective. But this content may deserve it for an independent article cause, a page CloseUp1 describes the person who has no information and we know articles of Wikipedia provide links designed to guide the user to related pages with additional information. As this person won an award by performing on a reality show of a renowned television channel named NTV so this content follows the rules of the Criteria for musicians and ensembles WP:NMUSIC and WP:MUSICBIO. Has won first place in a major music competition named CloseUp1 which follows the rule 9. I have includes information following the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia that can be verified through permanent documents of independent sources which published by renowned newspaper of Bangladesh, not self published content and not relates to me.

@The Gnome: I have clarified myself at the talk page but think it is needed to repeat it again here cause your sounds made me a advertiser and a promoter from a volunteer. For this why I am repeating it again for your kind information.

I wanted to publish the article via draft validation and wait for a positive reviewed result for publishing. but it is a matter of sorrow that after staying 5 days in reviews :@202.125.65.146: user have deleted this content and removed from submission. As a volunteer we need inspiration, hope none of expected such kind of sound. There is no financial benefit to me and this person is not related to me. I had done this job as a voluntary work.

You've mentioned me as They never sleep, you can but I can't think so. I have come here to be a contributor nothing else. This is my first article in Wikipedia and which is going to be deleted for my mistake, realized that I have to study more here and have pass more times here. In this circumstances I pass my free time here by reading and revising. I have not created account here Single-purpose.

Finally sorry for descriptive writing, Please don't feel hurt my sound. Waiting for closing the discussion and publish the content. Thanks to all voters in advance for voted by the way of positive.

Thanks and regards Md. Giashuddin Chowdhury (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Md. Giashuddin Chowdhury. They are appreciated. As far as I'm concerned, I typically assume that people come here to contribute in a manner they believe to be positive and contructive. Yet, I must add that the content of our contributions cannot be always up to our objectives. Sometimes, I may be a fan of notable person XYZ and contribute to the article "XYZ" with text that is promotional. I do not need to be a PR agent or a paid editor for that. We assess texts on their own merits. Take care and keep up the good work. -The Gnome (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome and Thanks for your appreciation. When a people write about a singer, a writer, a player or such kind of public celebrity it may occur. But Wikipedia consider the value of content and the information of the related people. I am sorry I feel hurt by your voice. Please don't mind I am frankly saying. The Gnome. Regards Md. Giashuddin Chowdhury (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric:, :@Fitindia:, :@The Gnome: when I clarify myself, you gone to the content matter and when I talk about content you attacked me personally. I have written details about content and clarify myself. This content may be deleted or consider according to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia & close this talk page, It was my duty to clarify that I followed the rules and content not violate the rules, nothing to say more. Thanks to all. Md. Giashuddin Chowdhury (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one attacked you personally, Md. Giashuddin Chowdhury. The two editors you accuse of a personal attack simply commented on the merits of the contested article. And I assessed the text as "promotional." Please revisit WP:AGF. No reason here to get emotionally involved. (This is my last comment in this AfD.) -The Gnome (talk) 06:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NMUSICBIO is one of the guidelines that is miles away from the established practice.It needs a major overhaul.∯WBG^converse 11:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

∯WBG^converse yeah, you're right, I believe this too. This content killed my valuable times and I can't wast anymore. You can do what goes as per content policy of Wikipedia. How many days it will be taken to delete this content and closed this discussion? Thanks for your response time to time. Finally sorry for disturbing. Md. Giashuddin Chowdhury (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Doesn't this meet WP:MUSICBIO#9 "Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition."? We just kept a third-place winner of American Idol, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabby Barrett. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we really claim that TV reality shows qualify as "major music competitions"? -The Gnome (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like Reality competition shows such as American Idol do qualify. At least, that is what I have casually observed in reviewing other AfDs. I have never heard of CloseUp1, but it appears to be the Bangladeshi equivalent to a national singing competition. The winners of other seasons also have articles. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That AFD was an aberration.On a sidenote, Bangladesh hosts a whole lot of private musical-talent-searches and it's insane to consider every one of them as an equivalent of American Idol.∯WBG^converse 12:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's bad luck for me, Thsmi002, and bad luck for Wikipedia if we don't change that deal!

-The Gnome (talk) 07:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NMUSIC.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:49, 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 keep. Sandstein 09:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cosmos episodes[edit]

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

List of articles that is more detailed on Cosmos: A Personal Voyage and Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey Danski454 (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As we are getting a second season of the newer Cosmos series, I think we'll ultimately move the episode descriptions presently in the series article into this article, per SIZE. (that is, in about a year, we'll have 3 sets of 13 episodes each, with reasonably detailed coverage of what aspects they talk about given these are scientific documentaries). The creation of this might have been premature but will be needed. --Masem (t) 15:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Masem's reasoning. Right now it's unnecessary but there is no use deleting it when it would be necessary in the future._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Masem. James500 (talk) 07:59, 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 09:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seileag[edit]

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

Fails GNG, no significant RS coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 19:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As well as several Google Books snippet views, this crypto-zoological creature is covered - though not by name - in this 2013 BBC report. (Note also that it is listed with a second distinct reference on List of Scottish loch-monsters.) If there isn't enough positive material to sustain a distinct article, an alternative could be merger into the Loch Shiel article? AllyD (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also could not find significant coverage beyond fringe sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:16, 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 The 1975. Withdrawn by nominator. A request to have the page "locked" can be made at WP:RFPP. (non-admin closure) The editor whose username is Z0 16:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Brief Inquiry into Online Relationships[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. We do not need an article for an album where very little is known about it save the name and a few possible tracks. A case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 05:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good grief, just let the article snowball, or redirect to the artist's article if needed. There's no point in deleting the page altogether when the redirect serves a purpose. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- We do not create articles for subjects that may one day be notable. Good grief indeed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand your position. I also think redirecting is better than wasting editors' time discussing deletion of articles that are just going to be recreated in a few weeks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm fine with a locked redirect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Walter Görlitz: Ok, then consider withdrawing this nomination? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        As soon as it's a locked redirect. Right now, it fails any notability criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        The page cannot be redirected while an AfD is in progress. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        So change your !vote to redirect and I'll withdraw on that condition. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Redirect because the page serves a purpose. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn assuming it will be redirected and locked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:16, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas–Mississippi State football rivalry[edit]

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

Speaking as an Arkansas fan, this game has never been considered more than a conference divisional game and has never been a rivalry. This can be supplemented by the fact that the two teams played only twice before Arkansas joined the Southeastern Conference in 1992, and the teams have played annually since then, only because they are both members of the SEC West. The discussion about this article and similar articles can be seen here. PCN 02 WPS 04:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no significant, lasting coverage of this match-up in reliable third-party sources to establish it as a rivalry worthy of a standalone a article. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 05:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First, my searches did not turn up significant coverage of the type needed to satisfy WP:GNG. I found stories about individual games, but nothing dealing with the series in a historical or retrospective manner. (If anyone else finds such significant coverage, I'm willing to take another look.) Second, my searches revealed no indication that this is considered a rivalry by either school's fanbase. No trophy, no game name, no long history, no coverage of the series as a rivalry. Third, I see nothing that would warrant treating this as a historically significant series. The teams met only twice before 1992. Moreover, there is no history of matchups with national title or SEC championships on the line. Indeed, the teams have met only twice when both teams were ranked, and in neither of those cases was either team ranked in the top 10 (#12 vs. #22 in 1999 here, #22 vs. #13 in 2010 here). I'm just not seeing evidence to support a stand-alone article for either a rivalry or historic series. Cbl62 (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vorbee (talk) 07:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as though my opinion won't matter, so, while I wish the page to remain intact, it appears unlikely it will. I will say, however, that the EA Sports NCAA Football 10 video game lists Arkansas and Mississippi State as rivals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalebHughes (talk • contribs) 10:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@CalebHughes: Your opinion does matter. Understand, though, that Wikipedia operates on consensus. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Feel free to WP:DISAGREE at any time. There is no WP:SENIORITY here either.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Typical conference game, I see no reason to include it as a "rivalry" in Wikipedia without further sources. try another wiki?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:05, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chu Chi Zui[edit]

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

Certainly a hoax, created on April 1 of 2006. The only mention of the name, outside of Wikipedia mirrors is on this blog, note that the entries were created on the same date and they directly refer to Wikipedia. There are no mentions of the name in Google Books or Scholar, and as a Chinese speaker, it does not sound like a typical Chinese name to me. So delete and archive to WP:HOAXLIST. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of the eye watering lack of verifiability, on which articles here live or die. This one doesn't look too well. -The Gnome (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very likely a hoax as indicated by the blog which used Mao Zedong to illustrate the person. It is a possible Chinese name, however, looking through some Chinese lists of notable Roman Catholics I see no name that looks that like it could be this person, I'm therefore inclined to delete it. If the nom is certain that it is a hoax, then a speedy delete is in order. Hzh (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fellow is almost certainly fictitious; the blog clearly used an image of Mao Zedong to depict him. Honestly, this article is probably the result of a prank. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 07:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quite obviously a hoax. ShangKing (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No opinion of this being a hoax, but it doesn't pass WP:V let alone GNG (at least in this latin alphabet spelling).Icewhiz (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I cannot comment on whether this is a hoax, but the story has a credible feel about it to me, not that I am an expert. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deletre The story may have a "credible feel" to it, but it lacks any sources. That a totally unsourced, probably hoax like this has existed on Wikipedia for 12 years is a severe indictement of the accuracy of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Btw, this is probably the oldest hoax on Wikipedia so far discovered. Funplussmart (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG, a gsearch (yes i know its not definitive but still...) brings up nothing useable. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i see this was created way back in 2006 by a spa, a question for the wiki boffins out there, why isnt there a bot trawling for articles like this one ie. old articles created by an ip/spa with no references is tagged/categorised as needs to be reviewed? ps. well done Champion for finding it. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Coolabahapple: I guess I don't see a need for bots doing it if editors like me occasionally do it, there might be tools for editors to do it, but I'm not entirely sure. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Champion, a bit like me adding "use dmy/oz english" tags to appropriate OZ articles, around 8,000 articles checked, 180,000+ to go:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The most depressing thing about this apparent hoax isn't even that it has survived for so long--it's that it's survived for so long even though someone posted on the talk page about it being an apparent hoax in 2006 (shortly after this article was created). How the fuck did no one notice this message until now? I don't know the answer to this question but it clearly points to a serious underlying problem here that this slipped under the radar for so long. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 23:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @IntoThinAir: Interesting, having looked at the history of the talk page, the blog that I linked before also has a page mentioning "Cialovesyou", which is the account who posted on the talk page. Quack? - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @IntoThinAir: Confirmed, note that the link to the blog on Cialovesyou's user page and the one I mentioned in the rationale points to the same profile, so I guess it's the same editor having a go at how quickly it would be spotted. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:53, 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (Patel)[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability, no indepth coverage in independent sources. GRuban (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How is this different from any of the other public sculptures on the List of public art in Milwaukee? --Theredproject (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, out of the first three, Washington Monument (Milwaukee) has two nontrivial articles about it. Juneau Monument has a nontrivial article, and what seems to be a small book! Spirit of Commerce does seem to be weak. --GRuban (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:14, 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 no consensus. For lack of discussion, although I imagine an editorial merger would not be objected to. Nobody argues to keep, after all. Sandstein 09:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (Rosati)[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability: no indepth independent coverage, only references are as part of a collection. GRuban (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the least, should be merged to the artist's bio. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How is this different from any of the other public sculptures on the List of public art in Milwaukee? --Theredproject (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERTHINGS not relevant.198.58.163.19 (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:13, 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 09:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Co-operative Residence Incorporated[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a housing cooperative whose only discernible notability claim is that it exists. The references here are two primary sources, a glancing namecheck of its existence in a blog entry about the general concept of cooperative living, and an article in the student newspaper of the university that this co-op serves -- which means that none of them are strong sources for the purposes of getting this over WP:GNG, because the ones that are substantively about the co-op aren't independent of it and the one that's independent of the co-op isn't substantively about it. Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An article in a newspaper, even a student newspaper, is a secondary source. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of one secondary source is not an automatic GNG pass or keep-clincher in and of itself. GNG requires multiple reliable sources, not just one, and GNG does put student media in the back seat as less carrying of notability than general market media is — a university student newspaper can be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by stronger sources, but it is not a bringer of GNG if it is the strongest source on offer. Bearcat (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One single student-newspaper as a source?

That's not stretching the requirements for notability; that's ripping them apart. -The Gnome (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. There are 4 references cited in the article:
- Torontoist: Coverage of the subject is not in-depth
- Co-operative Housing Federation of Toronto: Not a secondary resource
- The Varsity: Not sufficiently independent from the subject of the article
- Toronto Media Co-op: Not a reliable source (WP:UGC)

I was unable to find any additional reliable sources about the subject. Newslinger (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of the serious dearth of sources. -The Gnome (talk) 14:20, 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 delete. Sandstein 09:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Towers[edit]

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

Article about a housing cooperative, not well-sourced enough to pass WP:GNG. The only references here are an entry in the self-published "encyclopedia of our own history" of the university this was affiliated with, and a single newspaper article which I just searched for on ProQuest and found that it's a 200-word blurb -- which means that the substantive source isn't independent, and the independent source isn't substantive. Residential apartment buildings aren't automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but this is sourced nowhere near well enough to be considered notable. Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a number of local mentions in a before search. I'm not sure they add up to WP:GNG but since it is or was the tallest building in Kingston (Emporis lists it as fourth) there's a chance the article could be sourced adequately, so I'm going to abstain on voting. SportingFlyer talk 07:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, while I did find a small smattering of purely local coverage in ProQuest beyond just the blurb that's been cited here, it definitely wasn't enough: it didn't expand beyond Kingston, it didn't support the addition of any genuine substance to this article beyond reverification of its existence, and it was vastly outnumbered by coverage of a different unrelated Princess Towers in a different Canadian city (and even combined, the two buildings still generated less than 60 hits total.) Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : As an unrepentant agoniste for veracity, I plunged into this quest unblemished by prejudice, yet Wikinotability was, alas, nowhere to be found. Subject seems to fail the criteria for the notability of buildings, first of all: Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. We're certainly missing those.

Secondly, if there was verifiable evidence of lasting or historical notability of the subject's social importance, as a co-op, sources would have similarly been identified. Weak asides only have.

Essaying to locate encyclopaedic interest beyond merely the notability requirements fails on verifiability's strict regime, again: We need independent sources and we do not have them. This article is built on sand. -The Gnome (talk) 11:37, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 07:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Debipaksha (TV series)[edit]

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

Non-notable — F R ⁺ 07:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTV, I see no reason to believe that a TV-series based on the notable work by a notable writer aired on the leading Bengali TV channel should not be sourceable to GNG, see also WP:BCASTOUTCOMES. But I see no attempts to do so prior to nomination, or any other meassures to follow policy. The nomination does not state why subject is not notable, giving the impression of a WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE statement. Sam Sailor 07:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sailor - Can any reliable sources actually be found ? I did a google search but failed to find the needle — F R ⁺ 09:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me, Bengali is, if I'm not mistaken, your language, and it is not mine. I get ~50,000 hits on the Bengali title (alt. search added above), and if I just look at Gnews there should be plenty to start sourcing this article. We are here to buld an encyclopedia. Sam Sailor 10:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sailor--90% of the sources found are related to the actual meaning of the word দেবীপক্ষ (A particular division of days in during Durga Puja). Among the sources related to this serial, two are interviews and the rest are mostly WP:MILL coverage that almost every serial receives when it starts airing — F R ⁺ 11:21, 27 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) 04:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't have the exact ratings of this show, but a show on a network that garners a viewership of over 360 million[27] (that's higher than ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox combined) is most certainly notable and it would be only willful ignorance to not believe there is extensive coverage in the Bengali language. Just a quick search brings up in-depth coverage from Kaler Kantho.[28][29] --Oakshade (talk) 06:30, 16 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 07:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wu-Invasion Mixtape Series: World Edition Volume 1[edit]

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

No evidence of notability given nor found, fails WP:NMUSIC Hzh (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Hzh, I've never entered into a debate on Wikipedia, this will be a first. I disagree that this page should be deleted on the premise that it is relevant within the scope of Wu-Tang Clan, and it is notable. for instance the Australian edition was cover by the second biggest music magazine in Australia. this mixtape was just released. Also I have seen mixtapes and even albums with less references then this one, I was under the impressed that's a discog reference would suffice, I'm here to make wikipedia better and talk on a subject matter that I am very familiar with. Look forward to your responce. Passportgang (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have multiple links for the Australian edition, can you guys give me an indication if these are still relevant, I've saved two of these links for another article i am writing. http://themusic.com.au/news/all/2018/01/19/perth-rapper-b-nasty-featured-on-gza-and-dj-symphonys-wu-invasion-mixtape-series-1516343075/ | http://xpressmag.com.au/b-nasty-getting-down-with-dj-symphony/ | https://www.cairnspost.com.au/entertainment/kuranda-hip-hop-mc-diggis-has-secured-honour-having-a-track-included-on-a-prestigious-wuinvasion-compilation/news-story/92545e987e2ea5bcd45f3be88075ec07 Passportgang (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discogs and MusicBrainz are simple listings and do not contribute to notability. Same for AllMusic and other sites if there is no review there. Discogs is also user generated, therefore it is not consider a reliable source per WP:RS. The Australian edition is a different album, and cannot be extended to this album. In any case, the Xpress magazine one is only a passing mention of the album where the artist talk about recording, and the Cairns Post one is also one where the artist talks about the recording. You can read more about the guideline on notability for albums and why some sources are not accepted at WP:NALBUMS. Hzh (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. No coverage from reliable sources. In fact, there is no indication that this is even an official release. The "Official website" external link in the article goes to DJ Symphony's home page, which links to a DatPiff page that doesn't even include a listing for Wu-Invasion Mixtape Series: World Edition Volume 1. Newslinger (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. And there won't be any independent sources for this, because the albums are only available through Wu Tang's website, AND the contributing artists pay to have their tracks included on the Wu Invasion albums. In short, it's a money-making exercise with the Wu Tang Clan's names on it for publicity purposes. Richard3120 (talk) 16:51, 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 09:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jorowar Jhumko[edit]

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

No sustained coverage....Only one WP:MILLsource was found in ebela.in — F R ⁺ 06:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 27 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) 04:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it is difficult assessing notability for a TV soap aired in a non-English language because English speaking editors cannot search for it effectively. However I note that this series was on the air for fifteen months and had 420 episodes, so I think it was notable for its Bengali-speaking audience. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth- Just noting that I do actually live in Bengal and know the local Bengali language. I did a google search as well as a targeted search on certain well known newspapers. The only source I could find was this WP:MILL coverage (Almost all serials big or small get an article like this when they launch) — F R ⁺ 14:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Network television show on the extremely popular Zee Bangla network which has a viewership of almost 200 million [30] - more than NBC, CBS, ABC and Fox combined - it's hard to imagine why an article about any series on it would be considered for deletion. Just after a few seconds of searching I see ABP Ananda, Ebela and Kaler Kantho have recently done several video or written reports on this show [31][32][33]. --Oakshade (talk) 03:50, 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 redirect to SkyTrain rolling stock#Hyundai Rotem EMU fleet. Sandstein 09:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hyundai Rotem EMU[edit]

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

Non-notable subject. No references. I couldn't find a good CSD criteria for it, so I'm sending it here. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; a merge to SkyTrain rolling stock might be the best outcome. There's probably enough for a standalone article, but the current example is inferior to the main article. Mackensen (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content at SkyTrain rolling stock#Hyundai Rotem EMU fleet is much better, and the article being discussed here is unnecessary. PK T(alk) 10:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SkyTrain rolling stock#Hyundai Rotem EMU fleet, The content at SkyTrain rolling stock#Hyundai Rotem EMU fleet is actually much better than the article, Nothing to merge, This current article title is a plausible redirect so makes sense redirecting. –Davey2010^Talk 13:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SkyTrain rolling stock#Hyundai Rotem EMU fleet per Davey and PKT. Nightfury 07:24, 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 redirect to List of monarchs of Wessex#House of Wessex family tree. Sandstein 07:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eoppa of Wessex[edit]

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

WP:NOTGENEALOGY/WP:NOTINHERITED. The sum total of what is known about him is a set of old pedigrees that say Ine had a brother Ingold, Eoppa Ingolding, Eafa Eopping, Eahlmund Eafing, Ecgberht Ealmunding. (Ine had brother Ingold, Eoppa was son of Ingold, Eafa was son of Eoppa, Ealmund was son of Eafa, Ecgberht son of Eahlmund). We don't know a single biographical fact - the birthdate given on the page is made up and everything else on the page is just genealogical context for someone about whom nothing can be said other than genealogical context and we know one thing he wasn't - he doesn't appear on the list of kings. The page for his father already redirects to Ine of Wessex and that of his son already redirects to Ecgberht, King of Wessex. Surely it takes more than knowing someone had a father and a son and wasn't a king to justify a page. I would suggest a Redirect to List of monarchs of Wessex#House of Wessex family tree, or perhaps to Ecgberht. Agricolae (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect This individual fails to meet the standards outlined in the general notability guideline. The article can only exist as a redirect to the House of Wessex family tree. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of articles on non-notable people to connect how notable people are related. Mentioning Eoppa in another article might be worth while, but a free standing article is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect to List of monarchs of Wessex#House of Wessex family tree. Whether he was or was not notable is impossible to determine, because we known absolutely nothing about him, except that he appears as a link in genealogies. This is better than deleting, as someone may search for the name. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:56, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination is essentially only proposing a merge ("better off being a part of Barry Sadler's article"). I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The A Team (Barry Sadler song)[edit]

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

No long term significance over this song, better off being a part of Barry Sadler's article. JE98 (talk) 02:23, 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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potion-making: Practice[edit]

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

Lack of notability TheLongTone (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I gave links. see page. Comment added by page creator DyPeMaP (talk · contribs) --(talk) 20:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Above comment refactored by --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

slight lean to keep There are reviews out there, though I don't have any idea as to how notable/authoritative the various sites are. If they are to be believed, the game is quite popular in Russia. I would agree that to be kept there needs to be some claim of notability in the article beyond a vague sketch of the rules. Mangoe (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – At this time. I understand that this is a Russian board game and may be notable in that country. However, I could not find any secondary – reliable – independent sources located on my search, as shown here [34]. If someone can produce the evidence I am more than willing to change my mind. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Forbes Russia has an article and a Russian site I don't know anything about but appears to be significant in Russia [35] ranks quite highly. My Russian is poor on a good day, so I'm not going to claim I fully understand the context of these reviews. Hobit (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, [36] looks like a reasonable review in a source I don't recognize but appears to be large and be more than a blog (so appears to have editorial control). Hobit (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 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 keep. Sandstein 09:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RX 100 Movie[edit]

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

fails WP:NFF the sources are the usual PR fluff for upcoming films Dom from Paris (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Remagoxer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The film released on 12 July 2018 and is currently in theaters. The other similar titles have wiki page formats 'RX100_(2018_film)'. Should I update existing page or create a new page with regular format? Nagarajubhu (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nagarajubhu (talk · contribs) can you please provide urls of any reviews of the film in the press or magazines etc, as that would determine whether it is notable and should be kept, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Msrinath (talk · contribs)There are reviews online and its Blockbuster movie regarding collections.

Keep as it has been given full reviews such as Times of India here and The Indian Express here and Deccan Chronicle here and others so passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reviews given by Atlantic306 - seems to satisfy standard film notability requirements. Dom from Paris, sorry to poke the nom, I was just wondering whether you still wanted to delete, but presumably on tweaked grounds if the film is out? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the reviews I'm fine with it staying but as there has been a delete !vote I can't withdraw. That said the pretty poor reviews should be added and the phrase "The film received highly positive reviews" obliterated from the lead!! Dom from Paris (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To call that delete a !vote is a travesty, but you are of course correct, but I thought it worth asking in any case so it wasn't "counted" in closure. I'll have a look at the article Nosebagbear (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, as well as taking out the worst of the non-NPOV, I've added a proper reception section with the three reviews given above, and taken out a couple of the more unnecessary trailor refs. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:16, 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 and Redirect to Kona Venkat#As producer Just Chilling (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kona Film Corporation[edit]

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

fails WP:NCORP and notably WP:CORPDEPTH Dom from Paris (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability - despite being involved in the production of some well known movies, notability is not inherited and the company does not appear to be notable in its own right. References fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kona Venkat#As Producer - Googling the company finds several mentions in various publications, some mainstream pubs but mostly film-related. But, there are no in-depth profiles - just passing mentions of company-involved films, and they are mostly because of the involvement of Kona Venkat, so this doesn't meet the standards of WP:GNG as a standalone. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as above. Blue Riband► 02:12, 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo & Muna[edit]

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

fails WP:NFF and WP:GNG the coverage is not enough to pass notability criteria. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft as it is scheduled to be released on 27 July so if it gets reliable sources coverage such as full reviews it can be passed through AFC to mainspace, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and no evidence it's releasing on 27 July or anytime soon. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i have added some sources. That say it going to be released on 27 July. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.203.229 (talk)

and I have removed those sources you brought up because they're not reliable. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fail's WP:NFILM. Spirits tell me I'm gonna be released any day now but nobody knows. -The Gnome (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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Fjørtoft[edit]

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

fails WP:NFOOTY he has not played a game for the pro team and is not in the first team roster [37] and WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable per WP:GNG, multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. I have no problems finding sufficient news coverage to meet WP:GNG: in addition to Duke and the Sounders, there are mentions alongside the New York Red Bulls U23s[38] as well as Planet Football and GoPlay Sports [39]. Additionally, due to his famous father, there has been (especially in Europe) curiosity and interest regarding his future football career, which in my humble opinion makes him more notable than the typical pro player who, as you correctly state, has not yet played a game - unless friendlies count? It says here that he made his debut for the Sounders back in February[40]. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangyanzixuan (talk • contribs) 18:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Friendlies don't count. Geschichte (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the sources and Once a metro is a fan site for a club he played for so not independent coverage, Planet football is an WP:INTERVIEW so a primary source and soundersfc is his club so affiliated and not useful to show he meets GNG. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about this [41] one? It's from ProSoccer USA. Then there's [42], which I don't believe is affiliated. Also a few mentions in foreign sources, such as [43]. Agree with your points on the previous articles, though. Tangyanzixuan (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mind that the GNG asks for non-trivial coverage. It must be something more than a passing mention. Geschichte (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jan Åge Fjørtoft#Personal life, which already outlines his almost non-existent career so far, although sourcing it would be nice. As confirmed by article's creator above, he hasn't played a pro game yet, so fails sport-specific notability, and I can find no evidence of enough non-trivial coverage in WP:RS independent of the subject to pass WP:BIO. Again, as noted by creator above, much of what there is hangs on his father's notability: see WP:NOTINHERITED. Possible search term, so redirect. If he makes a competitive appearance for the Sounders, all we have to is undo the redirection. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that. I understand that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and though it seems unlikely that he'll not ever make a Sounders appearance, as you said, all it would take would be to undo the redirection in the event that he does pass nfooty. There are more than a few pages that currently link to the page, and it would be nice to have somewhere to go to - even if just a redirect - rather than nothing. Still would prefer to have the page and hoping that the additional coverage passes GNG! Tangyanzixuan (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Admittedly fails WP:NFOOTBALL but passes WP:GNG. Page creator has provided more sources, and I and other members of the football community have been aware of this young man's name for years independent of any Sounders association. The only reason he hasn't started professionally is because of MLS international roster slot rules, which while I understand is irrelevant to WP:NFOOTBALL is something that should be mentioned. It would be unfortunate to browse the pages that link to him and not be able to access more information, and as a user above states, he's a "possible search term." Again, coverage looks to be more than passing mentions to me. Cheers, Leeds 13:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.11.99.71 (talk) [reply]

Which sources in particular show he meets GNG as being indepth coverage in reliable secondary sources? Dom from Paris (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Notable father but notability is not inherited. -The Gnome (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment Already said my part above, but I'll rewrite the last bullet I did since I didn't get a follow up. Some sources I was looking at (for gng), but someone please check me:

What about this [44] one? It's from ProSoccer USA. Then there's [45] from MLS Multiplex, which I don't believe is affiliated. Also some mentions in foreign sources, such as [46]. My point is that there's significant coverage even when every article straight up covering a Duke game and nothing else (are there are a ton of those) is struck out. Tangyanzixuan (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of changing your Keep to a Comment: we aren't allowed to !vote more than once. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize this was a vote! Thanks for changing that x Tangyanzixuan (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point you're missing is that none of these pages show any evidence of in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Routine coverage – man scores goal in warmup match, fanpage says man with new club will probably mainly play in the reserve team, man gets pro contract with a quote from his youth club about the virtues of hard work – doesn't establish general notability. We can find 100s of namechecks for 1000s of budding footballers, but that's why we have notability criteria: to weed out ones that haven't yet done anything worth writing about in an encyclopedia. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I think I'll have to concede here. Can we still try for that redirect to Jan Åge Fjørtoft#Personal life? There's a connection there that to me would make sense to illustrate. Thanks, Tangyanzixuan (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league meaning he doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL, and the coverage he has received is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG (for football) as his mentions are only trivial. SportingFlyer talk 05:04, 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 07:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Berke Özer[edit]

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

Fail WP:Footy as has no professional caps - TFF First League non-professional as per WP:FPL. Seems to be example of WP:TOOSOON. Ortizesp (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete played for Fenerbahce in their recent friendly against Lausanne Sport, which I had marked as a comment instead of a delete since I'm not entirely sure how we handle friendlies until I remembered Lausanne were relegated/second division. Possible draftify to keep the history of it somewhere? He could be notable very soon. SportingFlyer talk 04:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY and no adequate referencing. AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am ignorant of Turkish football - but a National team = notability (IMO)

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 Travel Corporation. Sandstein 09:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trafalgar Tours[edit]

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

Not independently notable. Mostly duplicates the parent company article The Travel Corporation Rathfelder (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a fairly well-known brand, apart from its corporate identity. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Could you possibly provide any references that meet the criteria for notability to support your statement that it is a "fairly well-known brand" since your opinion currently isn't based on any policies or guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Travel Corporation which owns it. The article can be incorporated as another division of the parent company. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 02:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge to The Travel Corporation as suggested above. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Searches just turn up promotional posts failing WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:11, 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. Flash! Found femur fragment fossil fails finalization! Film at eleffin!

PS, if somebody really wants to redirect this, I have no objection.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Washington theropod[edit]

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

Singular fossil fragment with no name, not even a nomen nudum. Singular fossils like this don't normally get articles and the similar article Australian Spinosaurid was merged into Spinosauridae on similar reasoning. Doesn't seem notable enough to merge into something such as theropod, though information from the study not mentioned in this article could be used for the Tyrannosauridae page.

Delete I'd say merge with Tyrannosauridae but the information contained in the article is, as you say, not notable for for inclusion there or in Theropod. Many discoveries on tyrannosaurids have been made over the years, being the first one in Washington doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in the Tyrannosauridae page, especially if it is only a partial femur with nothing significantly distinct about it. Probably not notable enough even for the Timeline of tyrannosaur research article. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - It seems that this is just barely not notable, considering the fact that it hasn't actually been identified (or described if it is a different species), and the news coverage around it was released practically the same day the paper was. Thus, since we don't really have enough information on it to really tell readers anything meaningful (except that it came from Washington, but this can be put in another article), this page should be deleted. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 21:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep 'Angloposeidon' has been around for ages and has never gotten Afd'd despite arguably being less notable than both the Washington state theropod (being the only dinosaur from the state) and the Australian Spinosaurid, for both Washington state theropod and Angloposeidon, given there indeterminate positions, there isn't really a place to easily redirect either article, particularly for the Washington state theropod as there is no formation article associated with it, given this, I think the article should be kept for now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angloposeidon is a nomen nudum, and there's plenty of stub articles on those kept around; it has precedence. Fragmentary specimens with no names, contrarily, almost never get articles within Wikiproject Dinosaurs (with Joan Wiffen's theropod the only thing that comes to mind). Merge potential is something I mentioned above; it's not important enough to put the information in a different article anyways. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's noteworthy enough to merge the info and the image into Tyrannosauroidea Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't even know that it's a member of Tyrannosauroidea. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 20:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RileyBugz to quote the papers abstract (emphasis added) "If the femur pertains to a tyrannosauroid, which seems likely given its size and the widespread occurrence of the group across Laramidia during Late Cretaceous times, then it would represent an earlier occurrence of large body size than previously recognized (complete femur length estimated at 1.2 meters)". IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to contest my statement, or support it? Because I think that it clearly supports my statement (again, we don't know for sure that it is a tyrannosauroid). I wouldn't be totally against its possible inclusion, as long as it is emphasized that we don't know for sure of its potential placement within the aforementioned clade. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 21:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kindof both because yes we don't know for certain but also many things we don't know for certain and a "probably" works just as well for us as a "definitely". IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & rename as noteworthy for being the first confirmed dinosaur from Washington state and for the depositional environment information, rename to the Burke Museum number as done with other notable single specimen fossils--Kev min § 00:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all that I pottered around a bit originally to fix it up - the combination of unnnamed, unidentified, and fragmentary/unexceptional material makes this a bad candidate for an article, even if it is the first from the (geographically arbitrary) region. If a new genus or higher taxon comes of this, one could make a better case. (Another similar production [47] - just because it's a name without an article does not mean there needs to be an article.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to a new fossil section in Geology of the Pacific Northwest, as suggested below, would seem sensible, however. --Elmidae (talk · contribs)

Delete/Merge Notability not evidenced for a single bone fragment fossil, could be mentioned at Tyrannosauroidea but if not even a species can be ascertained or assigned I don't see notability and the singular location does not provide that. Reywas92^Talk 00:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This could also be merged into Washington (state) or History of Washington (state). - Station1 (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, WP:OR, and WP:HAMMER. It's just too soon; it's not even named. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If your going to delete this then many other would have to do that same like the Joan Wiffen's theropod. Its ok due to the fact it is valid. And no we do not put it in the history of Washington.--Bubblesorg (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, there's very few articles like this, that's why it's being suggested we delete this one. It's also not a valid taxon, it's not a taxon at all, it's merely an intermediate fragment. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bubblesorg - why, for Heaven's sake, do you create something like North Carolina dromaeosaurid while this is going on? Exactly the same issues, to a T. I put it up for deletion as well. Sheesh. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if that image is free for use, I'll eat my hat. For the how many-th time? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge I think this article should be gone either way the content should move to Tyrannosauroidea probably but I see no reason why a redirect would be left as nothing should link here. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear if it is a tyrannosaur also not much place for a redreict and the article should stay and to debunk elmide point of North Carolina dromaeosaurid I think i creted that just before I came to know about this. --Bubblesorg (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The single paper suggests it could be a tyrannosaur so that is enough to mention it in the article. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as the first dinosaur fossil from Washington state and on the basis of the article in an academic journal. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Another good merging candidate to sidestep the uncertain classification of the specimen would be a new fossil section in Geology of the Pacific Northwest. It's certainly of some sort of relevance that it's the first dinosaur fossil from the state, but not to the point of its own article. This is a page where it could fit in without seeming out of place or irrelevant. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea! I think that if a merge is decided, then this is the article we should merge it to. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 21:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up comment The main reason for people voting to keep is that the article is "notable", but it is not notable enough. A single fossil that has been published is not notable even if it is the only from a place. Otherwise we would have articles for individual teeth from Scotland, other states, a single bone here or there, etc, that have no purpose being here on Wikipedia. A single paper does not even make this bone notable in the larger scale, what can be discussed here (location and taxonomy) is just as easily placed on the article about its taxonomy, where only the location is then notable. Perhaps it was wrong to bring this to AFD, instead a RFC or merge discussion would have been better. This article clearly goes against guidelines for the WikiProject it falls under and if the verdict here is a default keep due to no consensus I believe we will end up back here again rather soon to get a consensus, in one form of discussion or another. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

final verdict?--Bubblesorg (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there's a very relevant discussion going on over at WT:DINO for anyone here who happens to not frequent the relevant WikiProject talk. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Especially being mindful to ignore WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments above, there's nothing here or at the article that would pass pass WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES or GNG. One can talk about due weight at other articles for mention, but I don't see any need to decided on a merge or redirect here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, love these sorts of afds, article less then 100 words (including references), afd over 1600 words:)), anyhow this seems to have made quite a media splash back in 2015 with articles in NBC News, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Time (magazine), KUOW-FM, The Seattle Times to list but a few, but is there anything else after that? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:12, 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 redirect to The Real Housewives of Toronto. Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Kaplan Mulholland[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Semi-advertorial WP:BLP, written and sourced differently enough from the first version to not qualify for immediate speedy as a recreation of deleted content but still not sourced properly. This is following the "get the number of footnotes up as high as possible and hope nobody pays attention to the quality of them" approach to referencing (a thing we call notability bombing, and do not take kindly to) — of the 64 footnotes here, about 70 per cent of them are non-notability assisting primary sources and blogs and press releases and Q&A interviews in which she's the speaker and not the subject. Of the roughly 30 per cent that do actually represent media coverage, further, even a significant number of those are kneecapped by being internal corporate cross-promotion within the Corus Entertainment family rather than independent coverage, and still others just feature her giving soundbite in a story about something other than her, or being "covered" in the context of her wedding dress or her parenting tips for how to keep your kids from being spoiled brats. The number of sources here that actually represent indepentent WP:GNG-assisting reliable source coverage about her doing anything remotely relevant to a Wikipedia notability criterion is literally in the single digits, which is not enough coverage to excuse how bad the rest of the sourcing is.
And furthermore, this is a direct conflict of interest, as the article was created by a WP:SPA editor whose username corresponds to an employee of the public relations department of the article subject's company. As always, neither owning a company nor being a reality TV personality is an automatic notability freebie that exempts a person from having to be sourced much, much better than this — and even if she can be properly sourced as notable, we are not a free publicity platform on which she's entitled to make her staff write an article about her. Bearcat (talk) 04:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Real Housewives of Toronto as a plausible redirect, but not much more; all of her other 'shows' on television flag as paid programming, suggesting a host for hire. Nate • (chatter) 21:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mrschimpf. --John (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per [48][49][50], meets the requirements laid out on WP:GNG. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello is a gossip tabloid, not a reliable source, and both of the other two pieces you provided there are Q&A interviews in which she's speaking about herself rather than being objectively discussed in the third person (and one of those, further, is interviewing her in the context of her taste in interior design, not in the context of anything remotely relevant to whether she would qualify for an encyclopedia article or not.) Which means that exactly zero of those three links assist "the requirements laid out on GNG" at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hello doesn't make things up, as far as I can tell, unlike some supermarket tabloids. I think it has enough independence from the people it writes about to be considered, in general, a reliable source. The text in the first part of the Hello article before the Q-and-A transcript can be used to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our reliable sourcing rules explicitly prohibit that kind of tabloid publication from being a reliable or notability assisting source, period — they don't differentiate between "tabloids that make stuff up" vs. "tabloids that don't make stuff up". There are people who believe what they see in Weekly World News, for instance (fake news is not actually a new thing!) — so even that distinction would lead to constant editwarring over which class of tabloid any given gossip sheet belonged to. The entire class of publication is simply deprecated as not notability-assisting or reliable at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but would you like to link the discussions where all these sources were rejected as unreliable? I don't see them as biased. They seem pretty sensible for fulfilling the standards of WP:RS. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Many good articles started out quote weak. This article has had the attention of many editors other than its creator, and now seems reasonably neutral. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect to The Real Housewives of Toronto. Not independently notable; promotionalism only. Sources are passing mentions, WP:SPIP and / or not independent on the show. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see enough about her role at iFinance Canada that I slightly prefer to keep over a redirect to The Real Housewives of Toronto. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to The Real Housewives of Toronto. There's a carpet-bomb of references. I looked in detail at the references in the lede, on the assumption that they're the best. None of them convinced me this comes anywhere close to meeting WP:BIO. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Real Housewives of Toronto where this individual's limited notability lies. Thre is just not enough INDEPTH to pass WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:02, 22 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. Sandstein 06:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Elizabeth Watkins Oliver[edit]

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

Notability - this is a family history - not Wikipedia worthyTiptopper (talk) 22:22, 3 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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being listed in a state-wide biographical dictionary such as "Marie Watkins Oliver - Historic Missourians - The State Historical Society of Missouri". or Christensen, Lawrence O. (1999). Dictionary of Missouri Biography. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press. p. 584. is an indication of notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that the article as it stands now needs to be pared down, there is much fluff. But this woman is covered in many books and appears on several lists of notable women. Tag the article for improvement, but don't delete. --Krelnik (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, in-depth entries in widely held books such as Dictionary of Missouri Biography (1150 libraries), and Hardship and Hope (1280 libraries). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Marie Watkins Oliver, the form of name used in the "Historic Missourians" source which shows her notability. (But don't move till the AfD is over as it complicates things) PamD 08:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And note that she appears in the Missouri Wall of Fame, albeit as "Marie Elizabeth Oliver" - found after I created a few incoming redirects for her and then did a "what links here". PamD 08:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep also agree with [User:PamD|PamD]] that move would be good. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Marie Watkins Oliver. Clearly passes GNG - seems designed a state flag generates coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 13:50, 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 withdrawn. Hayman30 (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trench (album)[edit]

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

There is not enough information to sustain am album article. The information in the article is about awards won by the previous album. No track listing. No studio name(s). No musicians. No producer(s). No audio engineer(s). No mixer(s). While WP:HAMMERTIME is only an essay, it applies. I'd also be fine with a locked redirect to keep the fans from creating a trivial article. I'd also be fine with a block for any editor who reverted the redirect if it lasts until the album is released. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NALBUM and several other sensible guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With misinformation abounding, just one more reason to delete (or redirect) with a lock. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems kind of pathetic to want to delete a page for an album we lack information on when there are other pages just like it (example: The 1975's next album A Brief Inquiry into Online Relationships, which similarly lacks a known track listing, producers, etc.). Just saying, my guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.36.78 (talk) 02:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Why? It is a notable album, by a notable duo. Instead of blocking people ho created this article, in good faith, and deleting the article, we should keep it and let people improve the page. We are going to need to create an article for this eventually. It has plenty of background info, especially for an album that was just announced yesterday. Also, I hope you don't mean that I should be blocked. I just recreated the page, with more sources, and when it was redirected, I didn't revert the redirect. Bowling is life (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a notable album as there's are no sources about the album itself. We are going to need to create an article for it but now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll step back from that comment and allow @Bowling is life: explain exactly which notability criteria the album currently meets. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Walter Görlitz: Well, WP:GNG says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Google "Twenty One Pilots" or "Twenty One Pilots Trench" and you will see plenty of sources talking about this album. Since the album is getting significant media coverage and it is by a notable group, the article should be kept. Bowling is life (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - But that's the point, it's not getting significant coverage yet. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Simple Google search: Billboard, Kerrang, Spin, Alternative Press, New York Times, Rock Sound, and Daily mail. That is not even close to all of the reliable sources tlking about this album. How is that not significant coverage? Bowling is life (talk) 02:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        That certainly is a lot of fluff, but I'm not going to be able to convince true fanatics that their band's album isn't notable so I'll make you a deal, I'll withdraw the nomination and I'll stop watching all of the band's articles to remove vandalism or you admit that there isn't enough information about the album itself to merit an album now (which is undeniable). Let me know. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not a crazy TOP fan, don't associate me with their crazy fan base. I am just here to help. I'll work on the article as much as soon. We have a deal. Bowling is life (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'd say it's pretty silly to continuously delete this album article, it currently has many notable sources and will obviously be built upon over time. Coda16 04:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- What's silly is to continuously create an article without sources for a subject that fails any notability criteria, and to fill that article with information unrelated to it and claim that this information somehow makes the album notable. All the information in the article is in the band's bigoraphy article so no redirect is required anywhere. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Stepping back here and asking @EthanRossie2000: to indicate which of the sources actually discuss the album. I don't disagree that there are many sources in the article, but they discuss information about the band and the previous album, not this one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per arguments above. DovahDuck (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- But the arguments above are all invalid. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. DovahDuck (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2018

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination because there is no guideline or policy that can show notability but I won't be heard by admins. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just let the article snowball. And in the future, please consider redirecting pages that serve a purpose instead of nominating for deletion, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:28, 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 06:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bruchey[edit]

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

Non-notable mayor who only received coverage in reliable sources for calling London's mayor a "terrorist". Meatsgains^(talk) 01:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has been Mayor of Hagerstown (which ranks as Maryland's sixth largest incorporated city) multiple times; also commonly "Local politicians whose office would not ordinarily be considered notable may still clear the bar [for notability] if they have received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btyner (talk • contribs) 02:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 01:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 01:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 01:20, 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) 01:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 01:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 01:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The politician received brief coverage for one event, and the event (a social media post) wouldn't even warrant its own Wikipedia article. At this time, this person is not notable enough to clear WP:BASIC or WP:NPOL. Newslinger (talk) 08:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The mayor of Annapolis, Maryland merits an article, and Annapolis is smaller than Hagerstown. Therefore, even in the absence of media coverage, the mayor of Hagerstown should be at least as notable as the mayor of Annapolis; News coverage does not decrease notability. If this article had been created a week ago, there would likely be no debate as to notability. Btyner (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability criteria for mayors is not based on an arbitrary population cutoff — it's based on whether the sources enable us to write a substantive article (as opposed to just "he is a mayor who said something stupid once, the end".) Also, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: just because an article exists about somebody else doesn't mean it necessarily should — so the existence of any article is not prima facie evidence in favour of or against the includability of any other article. Bearcat (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A single WP:BLP1E article about a mayor saying a dumb thing is not, in and of itself, enough coverage to get him over WP:NPOL #2. If the article were sourced well enough to be genuinely substantive, that would be a different story — but this, as written, is not enough to make him includable. Our inclusion test for mayors is based on the sourcing, not the city's population. If somebody wants to nominate Gavin Buckley in response to Btyner's misguided OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, then I'd happily vote to delete there as well, because he's not sourced well enough either. Bearcat (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayors do not automatically get a notability waiver even where they serve a city with a substantial population, and here there's only one source and that source has WP:BLP1E concerns. Clear delete. SportingFlyer talk 21:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed (commented out) the section/reference with BLP1E concerns, added a different reference (the official website) and tagged it as a stub. Better? Btyner (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The official website is a primary source, so no, it doesn't help for notability reasons - and I don't see any sources which might help save him from a WP:BEFORE search. SportingFlyer talk 05:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mayors do not get automatically notability in cities this size, and the article itself provides undue weight to a minor post written on facebook.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 16 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.

[1] Vovk, Justin C. In Destiny's Hands: Five Tragic Rulers, Children of Maria Theresa. iUniverse, 2010, P. 9 "Archduchess+Maria+Carolina+of+Austria+(1748)"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8we6zjJ3cAhXEct8KHUJrBHA4ChC7BQgrMAA#v=onepage&q="Archduchess%20Maria%20Carolina%20of%20Austria%20(1748)"&f=false 1

[2] "Alexa rank". Alexa.com.

[3] "University" (PDF).

[4] "Glock Twitter".

[5] "HelloFresh".

[6] "Microsoft".

[7] "Google".

[8] "Twitter".

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]