Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 June	1 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Big Shine Energy[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Google search for the name comes up with 53 unique results, none of which discuss the company in significant detail. ... discospinster _talk 22:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Minimal coverage in reliable sources, nowhere near enough to meet corporate notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Big Shine Worldwide (if the latter is kept!). Not quite enough coverage to meet WP:CORP. Pichpich (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Dial911 (talk) 17:07, 7 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Big Shine Worldwide[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Google search for the name comes up with 74 unique results, none of which discuss the company in significant detail. ... discospinster _talk 22:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not enough reliable source coverage to meet corporate notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a company, created on the 11th edit of a new editor. The article and references describe a company going about its business, presenting at industry exhibitions, but I see nothing to indicate WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Dial911 (talk) 17:05, 7 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema Tycoon 2: Movie Mania[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable per WP:NVG due to lack of significant discussion of it in independent reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 22:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does have one review that passes muster at WP:VG ([1]), but I'm not able to find any other significant coverage. Open to changing !vote if more sources are found. Nomader (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:VG/SE has just the one above. Delete. --Izno (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinema Tycoon, as not notable Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article on Cinema Tycoon - it is not really necessary for this to have a separate article. Vorbee (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are crap. Dial911 (talk) 17:11, 7 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema Tycoon[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable per WP:NVG due to lack of significant discussion of it in independent reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 21:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:VG/SE is barren for work in detail and a brief look elsewhere indicates nothing. Delete. --Izno (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinema Tycoon 2: Movie Mania, as not notable Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've been unable to really find almost any coverage at all here. Nomader (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to fail WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete references are crap. Dial911 (talk) 17:12, 7 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Shapovalov[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Even those that he manages have only a tenuous grip on notability and, for him, notability is not inherited. The only reference is not about him at all. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Although they aren't in the article, there are other references on Shapovalov that spend a bit more time on him. Here is a book that mentions his role a few times. He is quite prominent in this NYT piece. Here's one in the Moscow Times, not sure if they are reliable or not. Here's another one in the Irish Times. Here's a piece from Spiegel Online. And one from the Chicago Tribune. And here's another one I'm not sure about from NME. Looks like he may have significant reliable source coverage; while the pieces I linked are primarily about tATu, they do discuss Shapovalov in some depth. PohranicniStraze (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep included these publications as citations [2], [3], [4], there's lots more. Otrantos (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC) — Otrantos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — striking comment from checkuser-blocked account Mz7 (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be plenty of sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of sources. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. Dial911 (talk) 17:17, 7 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warinus de la Strode[edit]

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

Subject is rather obscure. The only references are to a book that gives him one-sentence, and two different renderings (one of them dead) of the same primary reference (representing WP:OR). This seems to have started out as a hagiographic celebration of someone's favorite ancestor taken from a self-published book, by an editor claiming to be 'a member of the House of Strode', but with all of the non-reliable information removed, there just isn't anything left that makes the person notable. WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:NOTGENEALOGY Agricolae (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did the removals referred to above and concur that the subject of this article does not meet notability requirements. — Scott • talk 00:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mainly passing entries as an ancestor (+1066) in genealogical entries.Icewhiz (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:NOTGENEALOGY. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:32, 6 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 Melbourne Football Club. Sandstein 20:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne best and fairest (AFL Women's)[edit]

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

Sports award limited to one club, which hasn't received much attention (mainly it is added as an epitheton ornans to "Daisy Pearce" in some articles, the award itself isn't the subject of independent attention I could find). Article was prodded, but prod removed because " It's a club best and fairest award... every club has one, and each has an article.." which is not really a policy based reason why this award is notable enough to have a standalone article. Fram (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highest individual club award for a National Football team playing at the highest level, meets notability as its for a club with 100 years of history such award lists are always in sub articles to stop the main article being over loaded with such information. Gnangarra 13:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The award is two year's old, the women's club is 5 years old. Please check WP:N, your "meets notability" argument isn't policy-based at all. It would be much more logical, if you are worried about overloading the main article with the two-year, one-winner history, to create a separate article for the women's club (which is of course notable) instead of one for this minor aspect of that club... Fram (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The club is the Melbourne Football Club, the club has two teams, one playing the mens competition and one playing in the womens competition. Gnangarra 13:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - added a reference from an independent source about Daisy receiving Melbourne B&F awards, it defining characteristic about her, the club, and the team. Additionally Fox Sport has more about the award behind a paywall Gnangarra
      - it would be nice if you actually did add such a reference. The ref you instead added[5] is one of those I refered to in my opening statement, a truly passing mention of the award in an article about a player: "the dual Melbourne best and fairest winner thinks" is the only thing that source says about the award, which is thus not a source which confers notability to the award. And that's from a local sports radio, the kind of source one would expect to pay a lot more attention to the actual award, but the example given isn't even routine coverage of the award... Fram (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        To be fair, we're probably a fair way off splitting the women's teams into their own articles. We're not worried about the size of the main article increasing quickly due to this particular list (because, obviously, it won't), but it's certainly helpful to have them split off, even if the resulting articles are quite small to begin with. What I will say is that this is being done for all clubs with women's teams – I had one more left to create before you nominated this article for deletion. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        But "we do this for all clubs" is hardly a reason to create these if they aren't notable. This one certainly seems to be a so-far non notable award, and I'm not really convinced that any of the others is any better in that regard.

Keep (edit conflict) per all of the above. Also, the club is still over 150 years old; it's the women's team that's only been around for a couple of years, not a separate club, making the notability argument perfectly valid. Pinging the go-to Melbourne fan Flickerd. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Congrats, you have just violated WP:CANVASS by explicitly pinging a club fan. Anyway, in what way does the age of the club confer Wikipedia notability to a two year old club award for a five year old club segment? (Oh, and "all of the above" is 1 person...). Fram (talk)
  - You're taking that too seriously... Flickerd's a Melbourne fan, but probably the go-to person across just about all things AFL; he would probably know more about the club itself than I would, however. "All of the above" referred to the reasons stated, not the amount of commenters – you are being very nitpicky. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - "All of the reasons stated" is fine, but there is nothing there even close to meeting WP:N. An old institution creating a brand new award for a brand new branch, where a few people from the club pick the best from their own players, is not a claim to notability. That the award is mentioned in passing by a local sports radio station is also not a claim to notability. So far, there have been two very swift "keeps", but no ground to base that "keep" on. Fram (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Club best and fairest awards don't always receive a whole lot of wide coverage, particularly in comparison to league-wide awards – your wording makes it sound as though only league-wide awards which have a lot of coverage/sources are notable enough to have their own articles, and club awards are not. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        No, what I try to say is that "only ~~league-wide~~ awards which have a lot of coverage/sources are notable enough to have their own articles". This is much more common for league-wide awards than for club awards, but there is no a priori rule that league-wide is notable, nor that clublevel is not notable. It's just that in this csae, it looks as if this specific club award is not (yet) notable. Fram (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        To me, the very first argument made – that the award is the highest individual honour at a club competing at the highest (national) level, which it is – should be reason enough. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        But notability is not inherited, and the "highest individual honour" for a small group of people decided by an even smaller group of people from the same club is not notable unless independent reliable sources give it significant attention, not passing mentions. You are free to try to get our notability standards changed so that the thousands of similar awards all over the world for clubs in all kinds of sports all are considered automatically notable, but I doubt you will have much success with this. Fram (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Melbourne Football Club; the fact that the women's team doesn't have an article should be a sign this is not a reasonable topic for an article at this time. The only non-trivial references are to the team's own website. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm very mixed on this as to whether it constitutes its own article or whether it should be redirected to Melbourne Football Club. Although I do feel this article may be a bit WP:TOOSOON, in saying that, while the Melbourne best and fairest hasn't received a whole lot of independent coverage (probably due to who the winner has been and her multiple other achievements), other club B&Fs have [6], [7], [8], [9] as an example and I don't think we can have one club B&F deemed notable and others not. In addition, although this discussion focuses primarily on players (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian rules football/Archive 7#RFC on sports notability), editors within WP:AFL tend to edit in the way and believe AFL and AFLW are treated equally, i.e. all men's articles have B&FS and probably the reason for the creation of this page. Also in response to this being awarded to a "small group of people decided by an even smaller group of people from the same club", there was a real crackdown a few years ago in the project regarding non-notable club awards. This award, in my opinion, does not fall into that group as it is the most elite level women can play Australian rules football at and the preeminent award within each women's team. Flickerd (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS + project consensus are both not acceptable reasons to keep an article where no notability for the subject can be demonstrated. "I don't think we can have one club B&F deemed notable and others not. " is simply not the way enwiki works. No matter if other B&Fs are notable or not, has no bearing on keeping or deleting this one. All you basically are saying is "it should be notable", which is a nice sentiment but not a basis to decide AfDs on. Fram (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect If this is a notable award or a notable club, then it isn't reflected in the sources: Since it is clearly neither, redirect to the parent article, MFC. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect no independant coverage asserting notability. What there is is of a routine variety (Person X wins award) and not coverage about the award itself. Fails GNG. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Melbourne Football Club: Definitely WP:TOOSOON; sources don't cover the award itself. Other AFLW B&F's should probably be redirected to their club articles as well, assuming the source quality is roughly the same. Tera TIX 02:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to to its Melbourne Football Club page. Even thought the club has been around for a long time, that doenst mean inherit to the women division and that the associates award stand alone page in Wikipedia. The page can always recreate when better information and sourcing are found. WP:TOOSOON. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Melbourne Football Club. Not independently notable. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:33, 6 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 20:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry White (Navigators)[edit]

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

Horrible advertisement with excessive detail and lack of independent RS. This needs to get out of mainspace asap per TNT. Jytdog (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's badly written and poorly referenced but why are they reasons for deletion? Knobbly (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jerry White was a mid-level military leader, the leader of a global Christian organisation and an author. The article needs improvemnet but it's low quality does not detract from those three factors that make him notable. Knobbly (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI - nothing you said, is relevant to notability guidelines in WP. Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Looks like he may meet WP:NSOLDIER under criteria #2 as a general officer, since he held the rank of Major General in the USAF. That said, the article needs some serious reference improvement to back up some of the claims made. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NSOLDIER. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meet WP:NSOLDIER. Thazinkoko (talk) 10:43, 7 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calista Choi[edit]

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

13-year-old figure skater. Her claim to fame is a fourth place finish at the US Championships where she competed at the novice level (which means younger than junior but older than "intermediate"). Obviously, that's a nice achievement but not one that will generate sufficient coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article. Currently, the only reference is to an official list of results of the US Championships. I was unable to find in-depth coverage online. (All you get is things like this that mention her fourth-place finish in passing.) Pichpich (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yeah, that's not notability Agricolae (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Also a massive WP:BLP violation Agricolae (talk) 22:16, 7 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 Already deleted. Deleted during AFD, with note that article was created by a now-blocked editor. (non-admin closure) Hhkohh (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarajevo Skyline Tower[edit]

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

Not notable. No citations. Robynthehode (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP: TOOSOON. The article says that it is proposed to be the tallest building in Europe - something that would make it notable - but it also says that it will not be completed until 2030. Vorbee (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Faith[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre; the prom controversy is significant. Mainstream appearances are minor.

Last AfD closed as "Keep" in 2009, but the arguments for retaining the article were not convincing. PORNBIO has been significantly tightened since then, so it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: concur with nominator, @CAPTAIN RAJU. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Quis separabit? 19:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NHOTTIE. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The real issue is whether to redirect to the boxer she was reportedly engaged to, and that appears to ultimately be sourced to statements made on the Howard Stern show, typically rather unreliable. Plus, not even mentioned in the boxer's bio. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:58, 7 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 Scooby-Doo. Sandstein 20:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coolsville (Scooby-Doo)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Even the sources in the article aren't significant mentions of the fictional town. One could argue for the notability of the games that are mentioned, but not for the town. Sjö (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most Scooby Doo subjects are notable and this article is being improved with extra references, its not as if its a BLP, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subjects are only notable if there have received a significant amount of coverage from third-party, reliable sources. If you want to construct a stronger argument, then please provide sources for this. Aoba47 (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scooby-Doo given the lack of coverage. Aoba47 (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scooby-Doo as non-notable fancruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scooby-Doo. No evidence of independendent notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:37, 6 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 Julie Rowe. Sandstein 20:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Greater Tomorrow[edit]

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

Book does not appear to meet notability requirements. –dlthewave ☎ 16:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant coverage of the book and it can be covered adequately in the Julie Rowe article. Mortee (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Since this book could be redirected and merged to the article on its author, deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R. No comment on notability at this time. James500 (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Julie Rowe. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Poher[edit]

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

Article reads like a promotional bio and is sourced to the subject's personal website. Does not appear to meet notability requirements. –dlthewave ☎ 16:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Most of the article content has been removed due to copyvio. –dlthewave ☎ 16:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swan River Kinsmen Pool[edit]

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

No indication or evidence of notability, and the pool was closed nearly 5 years ago. There's a claim that the pool hosted events during 2012 Manitoba Summer Games but no reference is provided to substantiate this claim. PK T(alk) 15:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 15:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 15:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every smalltown recreational facility does not get an automatic Wikipedia inclusion freebie just because it exists — it would be keepable if it were reliably sourced well enough to clear WP:GNG, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be reliably sourced well enough to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Community pools are not presumed to be notable. Fails GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one source. Dial911 (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joice Samuel[edit]

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

Promotional BLP of non-notable person Polyamorph (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources linked to seem pretty trivial and are only about one song he composed; most importantly they don't seem to mention him by name. Everything else is blatantly promotional. MarginalCost (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Polyamorph talk MarginalCost talk I have added valid citations, from regional language Malayalam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anu Appukuttan (talk • contribs)

[1] is a blog, [2] is some sort of ticketing website that needs a subscription, [3] is a link to a youtube video, [4] another you tube video. None of these are reliable sources. [6] is a rating website which simply credits this person as the co-writer. [7] Is soundcloud!! Only [5] can really be said to be a useful source, and only gives one sentence saying the music is composed by Joice Samuel. The other news websites you have provided in their own section indicate that the song might be notable, but barely make any mention of Joice Samuel if at all. So there is no evidence of significant coverage whatsoever of this person in the sources you have provided. Polyamorph (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Polyamorph talk the mentioned news article feature about the song composed by him, the singers associated are more popular than him, hence the news focuses on them more .— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anu Appukuttan (talk • contribs)

That's my point. Wikipedia requires sources that provide significant coverage of the person. Not a passing reference. The song might be notable, but that does not mean the writer of the song is also notable. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (people). Polyamorph (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 20:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 20:36, 6 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 11:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gopal Pathak[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. ∯WBG^converse 14:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if Pathak passed a notability guideline, this is one of those very rare WP:TNT situations. I wouldn't try to correct that article, I'd just start over. Also take a close look at the article creator's other edits WP:CIR. Jack N. Stock (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator fails WP:NFOOTBALL. FITINDIA 15:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failure of N:Footy. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if possible. It does not reach the WP:NFOOTBALL policy. Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 18:12, 2 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) 13:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:43, 6 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 salt. Sandstein 11:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Milkshake![edit]

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

Fails NOTTVGUIDE, These programme lists have been a magnet for socks for quite some years (as can be seen here), Anyway fails NOTTVGUIDE & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 13:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was previously nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Milkshake!, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and probably SALT given last outcome. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Salted redirect to Channel 5 (UK) programming#Children and teenagers per Nate ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Ajf773 (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Still not notable; just a block of kid's programming on a broadcast network easily described in the network list-of. Thanks for the ping, L3X1. Nate • (chatter) 01:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTTVGUIDE. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:44, 6 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 11:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Running Man ratings[edit]

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

Listcruft TheLongTone (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonencyclopedic trivia. Pburka (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listcruft, WP:NOTTRIVIA, WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm very shocked either Nielsen or TNmS hasn't issued an OTRS smackdown on this yet. Per not only Ajf, but WP:COPYVIO (and the links are dead to boot). Nate • (chatter) 01:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTTRIVIA WP:NOTSTATS \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:45, 6 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 11:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Asghar Khan (politician)[edit]

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

Promo bio, fails WP:NPOL. Störm (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete autobio. Fails to meet relevant N guidelines as well GNG. --Saqib (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:46, 6 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) 10:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Wilson (footballer, born 1993)[edit]

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

PROD contested. Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (never played in a fully-professional league). Will he become otable in a few months? Possibly, but WP:CRYSTAL applies. No point draftifying - once deleted it can be easily restored if/when he becomes notable, which I am more than happy to do it myself. Giant Snowman 06:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 06:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league or a senior international fixture and does not have enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 08:20, 1 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) 13:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON at present, hopefully will get a top game soon then it can be restored, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFOOTBALL, WP:GNG \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:46, 6 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 11:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Disability Justice and State Violence[edit]

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

This is a problematic POV-ridden essay authored by a student. The sources cited support parts of the content but the over-arching work is pure OR. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. There are vast problems here. For one thing, parts of the article (including the title!) rely mostly on one point of view, namely that of queer women of color disabled activists. Needless to say that this is a very specific group and the article gives undue weight to their opinion. Some parts are more salvageable but at closer inspection, some are close paraphrasing of other Wikipedia articles. For instance, compare the section Black Disability Justice and State Violence#Racial Control, Subordination and Ugly Laws with Ugly law#history. Pichpich (talk) 04:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am responsible for accepting this article, under what I think was not even the intended name, which would have been Black Disability Justice. Discussion about my acceptance of the submission is on my talk page. I felt, at the time, that there is a significant body of literature on disability as it affects people of colour, so that it ought to be possible to have a well-sourced article about it. It should not be kept in its current form, or even under its current title. We don't seem to have anything on the topic, so perhaps it is possible to retain some of the usable content in an article about the National Black Disability Coalition (NBDC), Krip-Hop or Leroy Moore Jr. Vexations (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR, WP:SYNTH]].E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Split This is a collection of stubs and drafts on a variety of (somewhat related) topics, several of which may be viable as standalone articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the current article is WP:TNT quality (with WP:OR, WP:POV, and WP:SYNTH issues), and the title is atrocious and unlikely to redirect anywhere. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kripke Center[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 07:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I see little more beyond primary and insignificant sources. Heart on sleeve is fine but where's the notability, for christ's sakes? -The Gnome (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the parent organisation Creighton University which is notable and then redirect to the appropriate section as not independently notable, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the Saul Kripke Center at CUNY (Graduate Center, CUNY#Centers and institutes) is probably the more important Kripke Center. For this reason, I don't think a redirect to Creighton makes sense - at least this page makes it clear that it isn't associated with the logician. In my opinion, someone searching for Kripke Center shouldn't be sent to Creighton's page, but rather given a disambig or just a search results with links to both CUNY and Creighton. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of the subject lacking verifiable notability. It even fails WP:GNG. The Washington Post article (news agency: Religion News Service) mentions the subject only once, in a context about religious boycotts of a private company in America. The Harris Center for Jewish Studies article name drops the subject once in a list of similar organizations. Exactly the same goes for the single citation in the cited book The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies. In the other cited book, Sensational Devotion, there is a single mention in a footnote about the journal the subject organization publishes. In so many words: We have no sources. -The Gnome (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator has withdrawn, as per a comment later in the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fallen Angels (Fallen Angels album)[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NALBUM and WP:MUSICBIO. The title is a hard one to search for but I could find none. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources don't have to be in English. There's a large template of this band's albums, and this one appears to be a side project, but for the era there are souces. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that English-language sources are not required, but what we have is one Finish source, not multiple. I don't see the sources which is why I nominated. I don't see any in your !vote. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enciclopedia della musica rock is Italian not Finnish. The point is this is not just the album article, because this was a joint project between Knox of the Vibrators and various Hanoi Rocks members this band/album/project is mentioned in both biographies of Vibrators members and Hanoi Rocks Members. It's clearly notable. I cannot understand why this was nominated. Is anyone aware of any other collaboration albums between Vibrators and Hanoi Rocks? Oh LOUDER says there might have been, but this is the main one.. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research. Not sure what the entries look like but does show that there is some coverage and I'm happy to withdrawn nonimation. Walter Görlitz (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smarkets[edit]

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

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. First AfD closed as "Delete" in 2006. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I contest deletion of this article. The 2006 nomination came before this company existed, so this is a different article. The company has received coverage from several reliable sources, a number of which in the last 12 months (Sky, AFP, BBC, Bloomberg). I will revise the page, remove guff and add better references. Chopz (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - having updated the article and references. For notability, I'd point to that it is front of shirt sponsor of a London football team [10], coverage in bbc/sky/afp/telegraph [11][12][13][14] & adverse coverage in the UK' s Guardian [15], amongst other mentions -Chopz (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment: The "Keep" vote comes from Special:Contributions/Chopz who is the article creator and has few other contributions. The sources offered above do not meet the new and improved WP:NCORP, being mostly self-promotion and routine notices. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There exist BBC and other MSM articles on Smarket's pay policy. Nothing else qualifies as a quality source. The Guardian's negative article does not appear on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T0mpr1c3 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian article is evidence of notability. Agree that the QPR sponsorship announcement is routine, but as per WP:NCORP the company's notability is clear from the coverage by RS in MSM. The BBC, Sky etc. coverage certainly meets the notability criteria.-Chopz (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please read WP:NCORP. None of that coverage is "intellectually independent" as it is all based on company-produced announcements, information, interviews, etc. The Guardian article is reporting on an event with little or no in-depth information on the company itself and no independent analysis/opinion. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 16:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:49, 6 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 Environment & Urbanization. Content can be merged from history if it can be sourced. Sandstein 20:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Medio Ambiente y Urbanización[edit]

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

I couldn't find many independent sources about this journal (but it exists) nor could I find it in Scopus, so I believe this fails WP:NJOURNALS and WP:GNG. It is unsourced, which is why I don't understand it was accepted through AfC. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a successful and highly regarded urban journal produced since 1983 – and with the last 13 years of its issues available open access on Ingenta (one of the leading publishers of on-line journals). If you search in Google Scholar, you get many papers from this journal listed with citations’ details. I suspect that it is not in SCOPUS because SCOPUS does not seek to include Spanish language journals--Rhino209 (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the nominator's evident inability to search for sources in Spanish is not the article's fault. Our page on the daughter English publication Environment & Urbanization which shares content amd editorial control IS well referenced and clearly notable so why would it's older Spanish mother be non-notable? The publisher International Institute for Environment and Development is also notable. The nomination is also not correct - the page has a source and more can be added. I accepted the page based on the notability of the English version with the same editors and much of the same content. If the nominator feels really strongly that the spanish version is not notable they should merge and redirect to the existing Environment & Urbanization page. Legacypac (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Environment & Urbanization. Like Chris, I'm amazed that an unsourced stub made it through AfC. There is absolutely no evidence that this is "successful and highly regarded" and contrary to what Rhino209 claims, Scopus does include journals in other languages than English (as do the Clarivate Analytics databases). Looking at GScholar I don't see anything indicating notability. Some articles have received some citations, many more haven't been cited even once. That the sister publication or the publisher are notable is absolutely irrelevant. In short, there's not a shred of evidence that this is notable and how someone can !vote keep for something that is completely unsourced (with only an external link to online content) is beyond me. Any worthwhile info present in this stub is already present in the article on the sister journal, so a merge is not necessary. Unless significant sources turn up (in Spanish or other languages), this is an utter fail of NJournals or GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Environment & Urbanization. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Environment & Urbanization. Useful and topical material in that context, but there does not seem to be enough notability for a standalone article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the article is unsourced, so merging is only possible if a source can be found for this content. --Randykitty (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Environment & Urbanization \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:50, 6 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mellisa Nielsen[edit]

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

Previously declined for speedy deletion, this individual fails WP:BIO. No notability is claimed in the article other than failing to take part in a TV reality show. The article also contradicts itself, claiming in the lead that she is an auctioneer, and claiming elsewhere that she has a modelling agency and has started a fundraising group. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 10:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 10:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 10:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Her article will be expanded more. It's not my fault, help yourself 18:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not their fault (talk • contribs)
Comment: Since the article is lacking content, it could be moved to a draft until such a time that it is more presentable. The Optimistic One (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass GNG. She has a Youtube channel. Some very minor coverage due to not appearing in Survivor: Fiji (and that is mentioned there already - I presume with her maiden name). Very little coverage overall. I don't think the article contradicts itself, per this she was a model, ran a small modelling agency, and then starting this charity/auction thing - however this simply is not SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this person passes the WP:GNG, then everybody does. Another "Melissa Nielsen can be found on IMDB; if this was the same person, then a very weak case could have been made for keeping the article. But it isn't. This article also suffers from WP:O, by the way.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability. As far as I can tell, this could be a composite profile of multiple different people. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:50, 6 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 Heath Ledger. Content can be merged from history. Apart from the creator nobody is convinced that this is notable. Sandstein 20:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Masses (collective)[edit]

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

This seems to be almost exclusively coasting along on inherited notability from Heath Ledger. There's exactly one piece of dedicated coverage here, and that's ref #1 [16]. Everything else is incidental mentions in Ledger coverage. I do not believe that one magazine article makes this collective clear the notability hurdle. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your feedback, I will do my best to add primary sources that are purely about The Masses. Let's use your attention to make this article better Jon Phillips (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Heath Ledger for the reasons Elmidae lays out. I appreciate Jon Phillips efforts to improve this page but am concerned by their saying primary sources as the way to improve. This article needs secondary sources to improve. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Working on secondary sourcing. Jon Phillips (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I linked up more sources, linked other articles, cleaned up the page hierarchy for more content I'm going to add, put a thumbnail, infobox and some more. I'm still working on the article. Thanks for feedback. Jon Phillips (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And added links from seceral more articles now that were just not linked, references, I Am Heath Ledger addition, and connected to Ledger article and more. Jon Phillips (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but - as far as I can see, all of these are passing mentions. I'm not sure whether we are on the same page here what constitutes "dedicated, in-depth coverage". The LA Weekly article is that; none of the other refs are. It seems to me that it is rather futile to try and scrape together notability from scattered and three-degrees-removed mentions :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naic–Indang Road[edit]

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

Non-notable portion of NR 402 in the Philippines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to be notable with no significant coverage, therefore fails WP:GEOROAD. Hzh (talk) 09:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to N402 highway (Philippines). In fact, all of the roads signed as part of N402 should be merged into that one article to avoid duplication. Imzadi 1979 → 12:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969, Hzh, and Imzadi1979: Help guys, the merge kinda messed up but you can check the N402 highway for suggestions and improvements. hueman1 (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh what now? You proposed a deletion and you left me hanging? hueman1 (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GEOROAD. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:51, 6 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 11:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

British Longevity Society[edit]

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

This article was almost certainly written by the founder of the group. I have removed the self-sourced content and one press release, and that leaves no sources. I went Googling for more but every single one fails the Marsh test for churnalism. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article has no references, and the only external link is to the group's own website. It might be worth resuscitating if some one can find more information and more references for the group. Vorbee (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: Most/all of the sources relating to the BLS seem to revolve around conferences attended and speeches given by Marios Kyriazis, who already has his own Wikipedia page. I suspect the BLS is just a vessel for Kyriazis. I'm also unsure if Mazkyri, who created both the BLS page and the Kyriazis page, has a WP:COI and is Kyriazis himself. This was implied by an IP address: see this revision to the Kyriazis page. The Kyriazis page might not survive an AfD itself. In the meanwhile, though, the BLS page and the Kyriazis page ought to be merged, and the BLS page redirected to the Kyriazis page. MB190417 (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, judging by the contributions of the article's creator, we should merge and redirect to a great big Wikipedia 'the Kyriazis Family' series, featuring Neoklis Kyriazis, Marios Kyriazis, Kyriazi Freres and Damianos Kyriazis. MB190417 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.T0mpr1c3 (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having recently edited Marios Kyriazis to remove blatant hot air, I don't think there is much to merge with or redirect to, and now support deletion.

Delete no evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:51, 6 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anne and Max Bailey Centre[edit]

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

This page is a mishmash of information about the Bailey Center proper and Anne Bailey and Max Bailey. One or both of those people might be notable but a search suggests that the Centre itself is not as there is not significant coverage in any of the sources provided nor could I locate any online. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just put this page in mainspace a few minutes ago. How about letting other editors improve it first? I agree both the founders are notable so perhaps the answer is a merge or a rename to a page about them that can mention the center. It's ok to have a page about two people. Perhaps Anne and Max Bailey would be an appropriate title. Legacypac (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you just put it into mainspace - that's how I found it through NPP. I could have moved it back to draft but it seemed like that would be more offensive than going AfD. Perhaps I was wrong but that was my judgement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 30 June 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) 10:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Filardi[edit]

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

BLP1E EnPassant (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KeepHe is a widely cited biologist with a significant job at a major research institution. It is true that this brief start on an article about a scientist needs expansion, and that the current condition may have misled User:EnPassant into thinking that Filardi's accomplishments began and ended with the Moustached kingfisher. Passes WP:PROFESSOR. I have added search bars.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, week-ish, but still. Gscholar gives him the h-index of 16, which is OK, but in an a high citation field like molecular biology not sufficient to satisfy WP:PROF#C1 on its own. Of the 4 well-cited papers, he is the first author on one. The kingfisher episode has a WP:BIO1E feel to it. I am not seeing anything else to hang one's hat on in terms of satisfying WP:PROF after looking up his staff profile page at the American Museum of Natural History. No mentions of things like awards, society fellowships, journal editorships, prestigious lectures, etc. Still looks to me like a WP:TOOSOON case. Nsk92 (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a molecular biologist, he is a wildlife biologist, first author a number of papers, including : (Filardi, Christopher E., and Joshua Tewksbury. “Ground-Foraging Palm Cockatoos (Probosciger Aterrimus) in Lowland New Guinea: Fruit Flesh as a Directed Deterrent to Seed Predation?” Journal of Tropical Ecology, vol. 21, no. 4, 2005, pp. 355–361. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4092013,) (FILARDI, CHRISTOPHER E., and CATHERINE E. SMITH. “SOCIAL SELECTION AND GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION IN TWO MONARCH FLYCATCHERS FROM THE SOLOMON ISLANDS - Selección Social y Variación Geográfica En Dos Especies De Monarcha De Las Islas Solomon.” The Condor, vol. 110, no. 1, 2008, pp. 24–34. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/cond.2008.110.1.24,) (Filardi, Christopher E., and Sievert Rohwer. “Life History Implications of Complete and Incomplete Primary Molts in Pelagic Cormorants.” The Condor, vol. 103, no. 3, 2001, pp. 555–569. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1369827.) and similar, including a widely major paper in Nature (journal). Nature. 2005 Nov 10;438(7065):216-9.

Single origin of a pan-Pacific bird group and upstream colonization of Australasia. Filardi CE1, Moyle RG.. Note that he is also widely cited not only in popular books on tropical conservation. Moreover, this is not the usuual BLP1E kind of episode. The online mobbing and spate of irrational, inaccurate news coverage was followed not only by more serious coverage in places like The Guardian [17], but also by last week's long, thoughtful essay in the New York Times was by Kirk W. Johnson, author of The Feather Thief, who was interviewing Filardi as part of a book project, although it is not clear whether Filardi appears in Johnson's recent book, or on one that he is writing now. And he had been in the news before UPI 19 April 2007 New genus of bird found in South Pacific, "...a new genus of frogmouth bird on a South Pacific island..."; in the Folha de S.Paulo, 5 July 2009 Até que Darwin os separe discussing new species on oceanic islands, and more similar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY I expanded the article. His work on populations, evolution, and ecosystems has been getting written up magazines like National Geographic for years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The popular press coverage of his work (now for multiple topics thanks to EMG's expansion) documents a pass of WP:GNG and WP:PROF#C7. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources present in the article sufficiently establish notability; the subject is notable in his field, as can be seen in GBooks preview, for example: [18]. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Borderline PROF. The continuing in-depth coverage in popular press - e.g. wapo in 2015 and [nyt in 2018 takes this past the notability threshold.Icewhiz (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:PROF. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:52, 6 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) 10:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kira Kener[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. Being included as #35 on a list of actresses is an insufficient claim of significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: concur with nominator. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Quis separabit? 19:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:53, 6 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) 10:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Jordan[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The articleis cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre; the "Pet of the Month" honour is not significant. Mainstream appearances are minor.

First AfD closed as "Keep" in 2010, but the arguments for retaining the article were not convincing. PORNBIO has been significantly tightened since then, so it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. The original AFD was an embarassment; a low point in terms of the community's refusal to recognize how much porn industry press was little more than PR copy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:53, 6 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) 10:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Richard of Cornwall[edit]

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

Essentially an exclusively genealogical entry with no indication of notability. It has a half-dozen references but they are all either documenting who is related to whom, or the family heraldry, and do not establish that this person has received any coverage as an individual rather than just as a name at a particular place in a pedigree. It had even more genealogy before I removed it. The only non-genealogical/heraldic statements are that his brother gave him some land (which was only used by its uncited source to demonstrate he really was son of his father), and method of demise. If that is all that can be found, he falls well short of the notability guidelines (WP:GNG, WP:BIO). In short, WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Agricolae (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and appears to have never held an office or title that would help with notability. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in article to suggest that he is independently notable - the mention in his father's article here is sufficient coverage. Dunarc (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:53, 6 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.