Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 November	13 November >

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. Vanamonde (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Renfro[edit]

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

Another non-notable supercentenarian. She lived, she died... and that's all the routine coverage of her says. I explicitly am arguing for deletion, as she is a considerable way down the list and, once stripped of longevity puffery that's ridiculous even by the standards of this topic area, there is not enough detail for anything; WP:NOPAGE is especially applicable here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only sparse WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia about her family and her secret to longevity, with mundane record details tossed in to pad the article. She lived. She avoided the Reaper longer then most. She died. Pure WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded well down on the List of American supercentenarians, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Although this article is longer than some of the permastubs that were recently deleted, there is indeed not any significant information about this person's life and deeds. To paraphrase: Maggie Renfro was born in Louisiana, worked, moved to Texas, got married, had no kids, moved back to Louisiana, and died at quite an advanced age. She was in good health throughout her life, and her sisters lived very long as well. Her entry as the 49th oldest American ever is enough coverage by Wikipedia standards for notability, because her age is the only reason she is documented in the encyclopedia. — JFG ^talk 08:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no notability. Deb (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –the three sisters combined are indeed notable- they are the longest-lived three siblings ever. For that reason alone, this article should be cleaned-up and kept or re-directed.TFBCT1 (talk)
Where are the sources to bolster that? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be clearly stated in reference #4 which I can see is no longer accessible. Here is a link with source and picture https://thegrio.com/2009/11/10/oldest-african-american-siblings-in-us-share-324-years-of-history/TFBCT1 (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the notability guidelines does it say that "having a combined sibling age of X makes you notable?" CommanderLinx (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter of appreciation for the subject of longevity, not Wikipedia guidelines. It is asinine to think there would be a set combined age requiring notability, yet the Thornton sisters combined age of nearly 325 years is a verifiable record for three siblings and is hence notable.TFBCT1 (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE according to what policy or guideline? Because nowhere does it say "oldest X/combined X makes you notable". You'll need more than one local news report (in the articke itself not this AFD) to establish any notability. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a Guinness World Record. That’s what makes it notable.TFBCT1 (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GWR are only inherently notable to Guinness and their fan club, not to the rest of the world. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:07, 18 November 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Sutherland (advertising)[edit]

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

References are made up of Interviews and own work. Fails WP:SECONDARY and WP:BIO. All the references, are written by the subject. There is coverage, but it is him writing or presenting it, except for one instance. scope_creep (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yeah, the references on the page don't appear to support notability FOARP (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find evidence of notability. Vanamonde (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The title of the article is Rory Sutherland advertising. Isn't that exactly what this is ? 2A00:23C4:D885:7F00:E97F:B02F:ADAE:89D (talk) 22:42, 19 November 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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potter Family (Canada)[edit]

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

Single-sourced article about a family, whose notability claim ("largest biological family in Canada") is not inherently notable in the absence of much more coverage than this -- and, for that matter, it isn't even supported by the single source, which merely calls them one of the biggest. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can address your two points: 1) This was on the National news across Canada, which, as far as coverage goes, is the top of the totem pole. 2) At 11 seconds into the video, the anchor does indeed state that Clarington "...is home to Canada's largest biological family." - Kbruynson (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things and people get one-shot coverage on the national news without instantly qualifying for a Wikipedia article on that basis. The notability test for a topic like this is not "Lisa LaFlamme said their name on the air once", it requires ongoing coverage in a variety of sources over an extended period of time. Even just a basic WP:GNG pass requires more than just one source. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I just don't see how they meet WP:GNG standards. The CTV news item is a one-off 'puff piece', in my opinion. PK T(alk) 16:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, stub, news, OR. Szzuk (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Chicago HERC[edit]

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

No references or independent coverage that suggests there should be articles about regional Higher Education Recruitment Consortium groups. I could have just redirected these, but think it's possible somebody will object. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are regional groups of this organization:

Delete all These do not pass any sort of notability test. They do not pass WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 13 November 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. Vanamonde (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dileepan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: And move Dileepan (Tamil actor) to this title. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 13:24, 18 November 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 then redirect to Christian Heritage Party of Canada#David J. Reimer (March 2014 – November 2014) (interim). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Reimer[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only for serving as interim leader of a fringe political party for a few months in 2014. As always, however, serving as a party leader is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts a person from having to have reliable source coverage about them in media, but there's no such coverage being shown here at all -- the only references here are three primary sources that do not count as support for notability at all, and one deadlinked news article in a community pennysaver. This is not enough coverage to make a minor party leader notable on those grounds if he never actually passed WP:NPOL by holding office in a legislature. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Christian Heritage Party of Canada#David J. Reimer (March 2014 – November 2014) (interim). Interim leadership of a minor political party would not meet WP:NPOL in my eyes, unless someone can point to a guideline within that policy that suggests otherwise. Unlike other minor politicians in Canada (John C. Turmel being the key example, with Régent Millette being another example), Reimer also hasn't reached the ungodly (pardon the pun) number of candidacies that these two have, so wouldn't have the notability there either. Reimer has a section within the larger CHP article, and that should probably be expanded with this information. Bkissin (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Christian Heritage Party of Canada#David J. Reimer (March 2014 – November 2014) (interim). I think Bkissin's idea is the appropriate solution, although we can't both delete and redirect as far as I know. PK T(alk) 16:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect per Bkissin. You can delete the current history, then create a new redirect. SportingFlyer talk 00:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, makes sense .......PK T(alk) 13:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson Guitars[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NCORP. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails ncorp, their website looks quite small time, i was checking in case they had gone bust, google returning little, news nothing. The article was created 10+ years ago and forgotten. An old diff is saying this was previously deleted, perhaps it is some kind of template error. [1] Szzuk (talk) 10:02, 18 November 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. Tone 17:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian O'Reilly[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NACTOR, with results returning, at most, passing mentions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actor and does not appear to pass WP:NACTOR, also fail WP:GNG.43.224.84.144 (talk) 06:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 19:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Y (Nigeria)[edit]

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

I can find no evidence that an organization of this name meets WP:GNG or any N criteria - there's a ton of stories about "generation y failing nigeria", none of which are about this subject. Praxidicae (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP not enough reliable Independent sources to assert notability. 02:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soltesh (talk • contribs)
Delete Does not pass WP:GNG and thus WP:NCORP for lack of significant coverage from secondary reliable sources. References in the article are not even about the subject at all. Nothing in BEFORE search. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:35, 20 November 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. Tone 17:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War Rust[edit]

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

No independent references given in the article, I couldn't find any coverage in reliable sources when searching online. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BAND. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to show they meet WP:GNG, and they certainly don't meet WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No supporting references independent of the band. FOARP (talk) 13:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC scope_creep (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and they certainly don't pass WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bancal[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGEO and WP:GNG. hueman1 (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to clearly pass both WP:GNG and WP:NGEO. SportingFlyer talk 12:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Obviously passes WP:NGEO. What is nom thinking? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can somebody explain how this does not pass (or does pass) NGEO?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Taking up the challenge issued by Sandstein I will quote WP:GEOLAND, which is a subcriterion of WP:NGEO and which states that Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. This is a populated legally recognized place and therefore it is notable. Hth. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - clearly "legally recognised." SportingFlyer talk 23:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn by the nominator (Rathfelder) (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra Orange & Emmanuelle[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Not notable in its own right. Rathfelder (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 'Unreferenced' is an article quality issue. 'Not notable in its own right' is an opinion not backed up by any evidence. The album is notable. It received significant coverage from Les Inrocks, Libération, 20 Minutes, and L'Express, and it placed on the Albums Chart in France. --Michig (talk) 09:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now sourced, meets WP:NALBUM. Sam Sailor 12:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great deal better. Happy to withdraw the nomination.Rathfelder (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yakir Gabay[edit]

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

This is basically a promotional company profile for this guy's various real estate deals. I see nary a source that deals with him as a person, instead lots of share price bulletins and portfolio blurbs. He is not a sufficiently covered subject. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Am I in the right place? can we discuss the nomination to deletion of this article here?

I would like to state that its not promotional, i have put some effort to put this text together and honestly it not always easy to write over certain subjects and keep it neutral. So, I took your comments and went over the article, deleted some sentences, numbers and tried to stick to the facts. There is not much information on this person, I would be very happy if you can go over it and reconsider, I will edit even more in the next 1-2 days. Thanks,Hilit.schenkel (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hilit.schenkel, if "there is not much information on this person" then that argues against having an article on them. There needs to exist a critical mass of coverage of a subject before an article can be written; if that coverage doesn't exist, then no amount of additional decorations will make it suitable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote before, I have added more references ( third party ones) since your comment and I have deleted some of the text. Writing that there is not much information on this person, was related to his personal life, not his career. His Career and business strategy has solid coverage and sources on the net and its appears in the article.Hilit.schenkel (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rather sizeable (personal net worth of 2 billion dollars or there abouts) investor / manager. Coverage in RSes over a decade. e.g. - [2][3][4][5][6][7]. Icewhiz (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY Keep per sources added to article by User:Hilit.schenkel plus those listed by User:Icewhiz. Real estate mogul with notability validated by coverage of major real estate projects. For example, Haaretz: Big In Berlin: "Yakir Gabay was the first Israeli to identify the potential of Berlin's property markets. By age 40 he'd already run Bank Leumi's underwriting company Leumi & Co., Freddi Robinson's real estate company Resido, and the Gmul investment company. In 2004 he decided to make his own mark, in Europe. Grand City Hotels & Resorts, which he founded, today owns and runs more than 70 hotels and has become the second biggest chain in Germany. It also owns residential and commercial property there and employs more than 100 at its Berlin headquarters. Gabay also runs hotels owned by his good buddy Teddy Saguy, who made headlines last week for an investment in Eliezer Fishman's company MirLand." E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Per above comments. The sourcing now in the article establishes GNG beyond any doubt. The nom obviously only looked at the sources in the article at the time of nomination when a trivial search in GNews would have revealed the many, many RS about this guy. Yet another failure of WP:BEFORE. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:23, 12 November 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transworld Group (Shipping and Logistic company)[edit]

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

This looks like WP:PROMO with material based on the company's website. I'm not seeing any WP:SECONDARY sources, other that stuff that appears to come from press releases. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's also an article on the company's chairman, Ramesh Ramakrishnan, which was created by the same editor, and was tagged for {{notability}} in August 2018. I haven't checked the sources in either article, or run any searches. Narky Blert (talk) 10:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it certainly looks very spammy. When I get to a PC I'll have a closer look at the sources and try and clean up the referencing to get a better feel as there are multiple references to the same source. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i did a copyvio check because it is a bit spammy, it is clear.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources are mostly press releases company documents affiliated sources and the only in-depth coverage comes from trade publications notably Exim, that are nothing more than published press releases with stuff like "Mr Ramesh S. Ramakrishnan pointed out that the tagline, "We bring you the world" reflects the group’s ability and service excellence capabilities, which is the cornerstone of Transworld Group heritage. The success lies in its commitment to customers"." or the following "combined with strong network partners the world over, Transworld offers a one-stop shop to all its customers." or this one "Transworld Shipping Agencies (TSA) was honoured with the award for handling the highest number of container vessels in Cochin at the Cochin Port Day celebrations on May 25, 2018. Mr Krishnakumar of TSA received this prestigious award from the Chief Guest, Justice (Retd) P. Sathasivam, Governor of Kerala."...definately not the kind of reporting from an independent source. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NCORP fail & promotionlism only. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am having difficulty finding sources which are not about Trans-World Group, which is not to say there aren't any, just that it's a very difficult name to search on. The article itself needs cleaning up - if it's a global shipping and logistics organisation, we surely don't need to know the new names of two of its ships, let alone the exact date and time they were renamed. I'll have a brief look to see if searching on the founder's and chairman's names leads to more coverage.RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, probably Keep if revised. Possible sources are The Business Times of Singapore, 'Cruising calmly through rough seas' [8] and 'BLPL finds a thriving route in shipping's treacherous waters' [9]; Vietnam Express International, 'Vietnam and Singapore firms set up logistics joint venture' [10]; The Hindu Business Line has an interview, ' To be a global shipping player, India needs infrastructure' [11]; The Times of India had an article 'Develop infrastructure on east coast to decongest west' [12]; there is a paragraph in the book Beyond the Myth: Indian Business Communities in Singapore [13]; Ramesh Ramakrishnan was No 27 on the Indian Rich List 2011, according to the Arabian Business (the listing is as much about the company as about its chairman) [14]; Gulf News has 'Transworld Group in warehouse expansion talks' [15], 'Transworld invests Dh367m to expand shipping fleet'[16], 'Etihad Rail partners with Transworld Logistics' [17]. I think there's enough there to establish WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGIND, but business is really not my field. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Another failure of WP:BEFORE with nom mistaking poor sourcing in article with potential sourcing in world, the latter of which is what determines notability. Just for instance:
- [Business Standard article 1
- The National article 1
- Maritime Standard article
- And so on... A clear pass of GNG. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, article revised and press releases removed. Figwood (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RebeccaGreen and WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 03:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Chow Tai Fook. A reasonable argument could be made for closing this as NC, but the assertion of copyright issues makes me take the more conservative path of deleting and redirecting. Had there been no question about the copyright, this probably would have been kept. There is no consensus on notability of this, per-se, so there's nothing preventing somebody from writing a new article, as long as it's appropriately sourced, in-depth, and free of WP:CV. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chow Tai Fook Jewellery Group[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. WP:ORGCRIT specifically talks about the routine and dependent coverage from outlets like Bloomberg. The Hong Kong and Nikkei listing is ROUTINE,as is DeBeers. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per WP:LISTED though sources are appalling at present. Theroadislong (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep this is a WP:LISTED company on the Hong Kong Exchange as clearly shown on the page - the burden is on the nominator to show that sources don't exist for a multinational with a 90 year history that is a big part of a notable conglomerate Chow Tai Fook. There is a public good in providing coverage for large public companies that employ thousands, have numerous investors, and who your pension fund might be invested in. They are a lot more important and notable than some East German handball player that made it to the Olympics 50 years ago and was never heard from again but is treated as autonotable because sources must exist! WP:LISTED makes the case that almost always do sources exist to ensure notability because the filing requirements, financial press coverage of listed companies, and ongoing reporting requirements for listed companies generate significant coverage. Legacypac (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment...could be merged with Chow Tai Fook whose main content is about the jewellery group. Theroadislong (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Merge into Chow Tai Fook. - STSC (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep content from jewelry section from Chow Tai Fook can be merged into this article and a main link from Chow Tai Fook to this article, as per other businesses of the conglomerate. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 08:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge one good article is better than two poor articles. Currently both Chow Tai Fook and Chow Tai Fook Jewellery Group aren't great in terms of coverage. Merging the content from the two articles into one about the parent company seems the best strategy here.FelixFLB (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG when considering Chinese-language sources such as [18] [19] [20]. feminist (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be OK with a merge closure noting that a separate article can be re-created if of sufficient length and depth. feminist (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to Chow Tai Fook. For notability, it may borderline passing GNG if someone seriously research the topic in news archive (as it was one of the notable jewellery store chain in Hong Kong, as well as a notable brand in whole China), but may or may not pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The current material are borderline speedy G11 too. Matthew hk (talk) 07:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, the article was moved out from draftspace at lease twice and move back to draft namespace at least once, it was also nominated for G11 already and contested. Content by Yulokyuan (talk · contribs) and ‎Kittychan1132 (talk · contribs) were hidden due to copyvio (and it looks likes a paid editor). The current state of the article certainly worth to merge. Matthew hk (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second note. As Chow Tai Fook (the conglomerate that start as jewellery retailer) and Chow Tai Fook Jewellery Group (the forked out listed company) are closely related, it is not wise to use hatnote for direct people to which articles they want. Also the old content of Chow Tai Fook was entirely contain the history of the conglomerate as jewellery retailer only, and missing those content as investment holding company. Creating a parallel article Chow Tai Fook Jewellery Group and then deleting jewellery content from Chow Tai Fook seems bad. Matthew hk (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that we need to vote on the notability of a very old very large public company not on the current state of the article. G11 applies to truly promotional pages, not every page that deals with a business, as some editors seem to think. Legacypac (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: Chow Tai Fook Jewellery Group is new, 2011 established listed company. The very old origins and the jewellery store was covered in article title Chow Tai Fook until COI/paid draft of Chow Tai Fook Jewellery Group was publish to article namespace. There is not much reason to fork out content. Swire article actually housed the parent, privately owned Swire and Sons, and the listed Swire Pacific ~~and Swire Properties~~. Hong Kong conglomerate was like Matryoshka. It just a complete mess to fork out the content if the companies had almost exact name and area of business.

In fact, the redirect Chow Tai Fook Jewellery, Chow Tai Fook Jewellry Company and Chow Tai Fook Jewellery Company (all targeted to Chow Tai Fook in the past) were created back to 2008 to 2017 and not properly re-targeted to the new draft-to-article Chow Tai Fook Jewellery Group until recently. Matthew hk (talk) 08:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Change to speedy delete G11 and Copyvio. Almost whole paragraph was direct translation from an 2010 article by East Week. The notability may had no problem, but content issue and overlapping with existing Chow Tai Fook article make the sub-article Chow Tai Fook Jewellery Group redundant. Matthew hk (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the alleged copyvio problem.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chow Tai Fook. Bishonen | talk 20:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Chow Tai Fook. Soft delete/merge are pretty much all related options. The company fails WP:NORG as written right now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:40, 20 November 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. Tone 17:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Lounge (TV series)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a television series, whose only stated claim of notability per WP:TVSHOW is that it existed. The only sources here are its IMDb entry and the host's primary source contributor profile on Metacritic, neither of which are reliable or notability-conferring sources. As always, the notability test for television series is not just the ability to technically verify that it existed; it's the ability to show that it received reliable source coverage about it in media other than its own primary source content about itself, but there's none of that being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as per Wikipedia:TVSHOW a TV or radio program is notable if it appears on a national channel. Not sure if this channel counts as this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:C5F6:2700:E4D0:5DAB:359:CF4D (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A show needs to be reliably sourceable as having received media coverage for appearing on a national channel to get past that notability criterion. Simply claiming it is not a notability freebie that exempts a TV show from having to have had media coverage about it. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found three independent sources straight away: San Francisco Chronicle, UCLA website and C21media who have stories on the launch of the channel and regarding the programme. As quoted before WP:TVSHOW says TV or radio are all notable if on a national or several channels but did imaginasia actually meet this as it states on the web it was not available Across all the usa? Notability rules are becoming harder to meet as Google newspapers doesnt work anymore, and many newspapers are now taking anything over 10yrs off the net. Other editor opinions please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:C5F6:2700:E4D0:5DAB:359:CF4D (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not becoming harder to meet notability rules at all. For one thing, notability rules don't actually depend on whether the sources are online or not — we are allowed to cite print-only content, and there are literally hundreds of databases in which we can search for old newspaper, magazine or academic journal coverage that doesn't show up on Google. If anything, it's much easier to properly demonstrate the notability of a non-contemporary topic now than it used to be, because we have access to a much wider array of archiving tools than we did a decade ago and are less purely dependent on what does or doesn't google. The only thing that's true now is that an article's deficiencies of sourcing are easier to identify, because our access to an improved range of referencing tools means we don't have to give nearly as much benefit of the doubt to a badly sourced article anymore as we often did in the past. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment most archiving tools make it easier. Where please? As previously said most websites are now dropping all old content and so far I have not found any archiving website that works. I know when I was researching for a story I know was in a national paper that was not available online and I had to get a hard copy. Also eu users are blocked from seeing quite a bit of non eu evidence due to privacy laws.

There's no one site that's the magical fount of all media coverage worldwide. Some publications have their own proprietary archives, some contract it out to ProQuest or Questia or newspapers.com or newspaperarchive.com or Ex Libris or Gage or Ebsco or HighBeam or JSTOR or other similar sites — so you would have to figure out what publications the content you're looking for might have been in, find out which archiving provider they use, and get an account with that site. I have free access to some Canadian newspaper archives through my local public library, for example, and I have a few accounts on other databases through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library — but that still doesn't mean I have unfettered access to all possible media coverage worldwide, because I'm strictly at the mercy of what publications are available in the databases I have access to. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty generic overall music show on a network that really never justified its shows being broken out into their own articles. Nate • (chatter) 14:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Imaginasia TV page.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn, stub. Szzuk (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty clear this show fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage from secondary sources and thus WP:TVSERIES which says that absence or presence of sources is more important than the geographic range of the said program. Doing a merge to ImaginAsian is pointless considering the article is basically a list of the shows and stations. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:32, 19 November 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. With many thanks to Michig for finding sources. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katharine Blake (singer)[edit]

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

Non notable musician, Cannot find any sources on this person, Sources are all coming up for Katharine Blake (singer) but "Katharine Blake singer" brings up nothing, Fails NMUSIC & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 17:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Founding and key member of two notable bands, Miranda Sex Garden ([21], [22]) and Mediaeval Babes ([23], [24], [25]), and also half of the Deep, with Nick Marsh ([26]). Satisfies WP:NMUSIC criterion 6. Apart from these, book sources such as The Great Rock Discography and The Encyclopedia of Popular Music can be used for verification. --Michig (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brutal Juice[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:BAND. Lack of independent, reliable third party sources. No charting history. Closest thing to coverage is the perfunctory one paragraph review to 1 album on AllMusic. Tagged for lack or sources for nearly 2 years with no improvements. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:NMUSIC criterion1 and WP:GNG via [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], and no doubt further print coverage from largely pre-internet early years. --Michig (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC) The band also satisfies criterion 5 of the guideline with albums released on Interscope Records and Alternative Tentacles. --Michig (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Highbeam link you provided doesn't mention the band in the synopsis, so I struggle with calling it substantial coverage. Trouser Press? Not convinced. Dallas Observer, at the time, was a local free paper. And we all know that you think every band that got that single paragraph on All Music has "significant coverage". Niteshift36 (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline calls for significant coverage in reliable sources. Why are you not convinced by Trouser Press? It's clearly significant coverage and clearly satisfies WP:RS. We have no guidelines stating how many paragraphs constitute significant coverage, but feel free to keep wikilawyering away. --Michig (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1 paragraph isn't significant. Especially when it's at AllMusic by some dude whose sole job is to write a single paragraph on as many bands as possible. That's not wikilawyering, it's common sense. Next we'll be calling a single sentence "significant". Niteshift36 (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets GNG overall, per a source review. See below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Trouser Press. Trouser Press.
Dallas Observer Also note the longer, separate, full May 1992 article that is also pictured within this article.
Dallas Observer
All Music
The Dentonite (appears to be an overall reliable source)

The Washington Post. Has some content, but not significant coverage, in my view.
Houston Press. Has some content, but not significant coverage, in my view.

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Fire Club[edit]

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

nn unsourced, classic case of WP:NOT a directory Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- NN is wrong and "unsourced" is not a deletion criterion, nor is WP:NOT. So a procedural close would be appropriate, but as it happens, this subject easily meets the GNG. Just consider:
- Two Westchester groups are helping to save the American chestnut tree
- Field & Stream. June 2004. pp. 9–. ISSN 87558599 Parameter error in {{issn}}: Invalid ISSN..
- Charles Hallock; William A. Bruette (1915). Forest and Stream. Forest and Stream Publishing Company. pp. 398–.
- Amateur Sportsman. Outdoor World Publishing Company. 1909. pp. 3–.
- And so on... Thus keep. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article reflects nothing of that, nor have you added these sources.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What does it matter what the article reflects? What does it matter what I added? It's almost as if you haven't read WP:ARTN. It's almost as if you didn't bother to do WP:BEFORE. You ought to withdraw this nomination. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost as if you haven't read WP:SOFIXIT.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost as if *you* haven't read SOFIXIT. You're the one complaining about the state of the article, not me. You're the one, if anyone, who that editing guideline refers to. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ some refs mentioning the club have been noted above but they aren't saying why the club is notable. It does appear to be a historic club and old clubs tend to have some reason they haven't disappeared, but I've looked on google and can't find anything. Willing to reconsider if more refs are forthcoming. Szzuk (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was a good nomination but i'm switching to keep based upon the refs below. Szzuk (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Some source examples include: [32], [33], [34] [35]; more are also available. These sources also provide background information describing how the organization is noteworthy. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon plankton (spongebob)[edit]

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

Seems to be a duplicate of this article but I don't believe that it qualifies for CSD. Kb03 (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is a duplicate of another page. A redirect to Plankton and Karen would also be appropriate though I am uncertain if the title is a viable search term with the odd capitalization. Aoba47 (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Cool for August. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Walk Away (Cool for August song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Prod removed without explanation. Suggest possible redirect to Cool for August. SummerPhD^v2.0 23:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on Cool for August.Vorbee (talk) 16:19, 12 November 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. Tone 17:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Walls of the Cave[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Prod removed without explanation. Suggest possible redirect to Round Room. SummerPhD^v2.0 23:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yeah, I can't find anything sustaining notability for this song per se, though the Round Room is clearly notable. FOARP (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to Round Room. The content of the article is original research and trivia. I can't find anything suggesting notability. Slideshow Bob (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Helquinoline[edit]

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

All chemical compounds must meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia. This one does not. It does not appear in the chemical literature beyond the description of it being identified and in one other short paper (doi:10.1016/j.tet.2014.06.088). A Google search turns up nothing more than routine/automated database listings. There isn't more to be said about this chemical compound than what's written in this one sentence stub. ChemNerd (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Nothing but the original research report and the statement that it is a member of an obscure class of compounds that is itself redlinked. Agricolae (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not just mentioned in the given reference about what it is, or similar sources giving only a simple description. This journal article talks about approaches to helquinoline in the convergence of products and use in reactions, and I see a number of books published about this compound, including [36] and [37]. Leo1pard (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an accurate portrayal of the books in question, which are not even close to being books about this compound. One includes it, in a single mention, among a list of analogues of quinolone (and shows its structure among those of a host of such analogs), but says nothing more about it. The other simply says it has antibacterial activity and names the species it was isolated from, but again provides nothing more than this simple statement. Neither book even gives it a complete sentence. Both are passing references. As to the journal article, it looks to me like nothing more than an organic synthesis paper - this is a way to make it, though the title is rather opaque (and the summary above rather misleading). The intro just states the fact that it has been found to have some antibiotic activity, and that it is racemic, and preparations were contaminated with something else. For this it cites two primary reports, neither of which I can identify without dropping more cash than it is worth. From my perspective, these article and books given by Leo1pard add next to nothing along the lines of sustained detailed coverage (WP:GNG). Agricolae (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the mention in the paper by Stevenson et al., mentioned by both ChemNerd and Leo1pard, it is not significant coverage. Although some science topics are considered automatically notable (all species are considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article, for example), individual chemicals are not. The bar of "significant" coverage is clearly not met here. Slideshow Bob (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "It exists" isn't good enough for chemical notability. Reading the above sources and what's at the article, it's really just passing mention at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:02, 19 November 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. Tone 17:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sini Hill[edit]

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

Looks like WP:TOOEARLY Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON. Sdmarathe (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find sources in either Finnish or English that would satisfy WP:GNG and her acting credentials seem to be well below WP:ENTERTAINER. -kyykaarme (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage from secondary reliable sources (nothing in BEFORE search, and sources in the article are paywall, primary, IMDB and a non independent source) and also WP:NACTOR for having significant roles in notable films or shows. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:36, 19 November 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. Tone 17:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paradox (theorem prover)[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. A few passing mentions, in in-depth analysis/reviews. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nomination seems to describe the situation fairly accurately. In addition, the paper that describes the software ("New techniques that improve MACE-style model ﬁnding") looks to have only 12 citations on Google Scholar, which is not a sign that the wider academic community has taken note of it. XOR'easter (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure yet what ought to be done with the article, but my argument above is obsolete. XOR'easter (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ... There's at least a couple of versions of versions of "New techniques that improve MACE-style model ﬁnding" about (same content different page layout) and semantic scholar claims cited by 294 and highly influential on 44 papers. While I'd quite possibly accept that as a significant over-estimate we do have an article that is sufficently referenced for retention and could be improved by those more knowledgable in the subject than I.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know why Google Scholar does not find the main paper if given the title, but if you look under the main author, Koen Claessen, it finds a version of the paper with 279 citations - which is significant (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-sGcY-QAAAAJ&hl=en). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:16, 12 November 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. Tone 17:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JQuarks[edit]

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

For years, this has only been prodded, deprodded, etc. No expansion. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. I am not seeing anything significant except few passing mentions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, which should have been done when it was first created. In my opinion, WP:G4 still applies to a recreation that contains no meaningful independent references when the previous article was deleted for failing notability, even if the text isn't precisely the same. The page as created was also eligible for speedy WP:G12 as a copyvio, so at the very least, the history needs revdeleting. SpinningSpark 12:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 14:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minor product of minor company with one source (the company). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Damian[edit]

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

Non-notable actor/model that fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR

As a model, making top 10 finalist of Mr Nigeria, without winning it falls short of the specific notability criteria.

As an actor, his role in Tatu, The Wedding Party (2016 film), Mr and Mrs chapter 2, A Little White Lie, Slow Country (film) are NOT major roles. I haven't watched the remaining films listed in his filmography section, but the information online doesn't suggest he has significant roles in them, besides most of the ones I didn't list do not pass WP:NFILMS. At best, just an upcoming actor. HandsomeBoy (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per HandsomeBoy comment, the sources provided clearly shows he’s not notable, even with a quick web search I couldn’t find any reliable sources to affirm notability of the said subject. If he’s to be considered by bypassing WP:TOOSOON, he still fails WP:NMODEL.

Is Nutin 14:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soltesh (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:59, 15 November 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. Tone 17:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Castlecomer (band)[edit]

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

Band which does not pass either WP:NBAND or WP:GNG, unsurprising given how new it is. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete PROMO article. Cannot see anywhere suffuicient IRS to support WP:NEXIST so does not get close on notability. Aoziwe (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing from delete to weak delete on the basis of some references highlighted below. The article is borderline WP:TNT and needs a rewrite to dePROMO it. Aoziwe (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page absolutely should NOT be deleted; although the band only has one full-length studio album out, it is on a major U.S. record label and they're currently blowing up following a huge SXSW presence last year. They are going to be a huge presence on lineups on the festival scene next spring and summer. Request to delete seems to be from one individual's bias.Writer1977 (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Where are the Delete !voters looking? Just a quick Google found SF Examiner, Sydney Morning Herald, and PopMatters, in addition to the reliable sources already in the article. Satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC criterion 1. --Michig (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 14:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there's also the AllMusic biography and this piece from Riff magazine [38] which I think is reliable – it might be a little WP:TOOSOON but I think there's enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:BAND. The promotional content in the article needs toning down, though. Richard3120 (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As others noted, a quick google search found many reliable articles for this band, which is signed on a major label. This passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 1 and 5. The article still needs serious revision, like adding in new sources and following WP:LEAD. Also something to note is that Writer1977 is being paid to write this article, which is why it is so promotional in nature.Awsomaw (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saulat Nagi[edit]

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

Journalists are not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia unless they either pass WP:JOURNALIST or basic GNG. This one fails at both end. Saqib (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 11:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Not just a journalist, but cannot find much at all about the subject. There is some by the subject. At best single event. Aoziwe (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updated article - some non trivially found references - perhaps now a weak keep on the basis of WP:NAUTHOR? Aoziwe (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which? --Saqib (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was WP:AGF those now added to the article by Scientist_neuro (even if an SPA). Aoziwe (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete / Accept current version The person described in the article is not just a journalist but has authored multiple books on socialism and history. To address the concerns raised, relevant citations and details about the author's literary works have now been incorporated in the article - consistent with the guidelines.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs major rewrite, better sourcing, but appears to be notable journalist/author as per articles like Dawn (newspaper): Whirlwind of intolerance: "That the writers face a rough time ahead is confirmed by the attack on the Gujranwala home of Dr Saulat Nagi, author of a book on the evolution of religions and a contributor to English-language newspapers".E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 13:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree, he appears to be a notable journalist / author. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World Federation of Scientists[edit]

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

Given the grandiose terms this group uses about itself, it is remarkable how difficulty it is to find reliable independent sources. Yes a few press releases make it into the literature, but I am really struggling to find any credible sources about the group itself. Guy (Help!) 01:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Merely a non-notable political pressure group with a pretentious title. SpinningSpark 16:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 13:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's often helpful to have some information about who denialist groups are, for the benefit of people who try to look them up. Compare this recent discussion about the "Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity", a defunct creationist group, which wasn't notable on its own. Is there any reasonable target for a redirect and selective merge? (Where "reasonable" means, in part, "supported by a more reliable source than a random Medium post".) XOR'easter (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Heartland Institute would be the obvious target if we had a better source for the association with it. At the moment, it is not even mentioned there. Nor is it mentioned at Isidor Isaac Rabi one of the supposed founders. The latter is a Featured Article, so I would be cautious about merging to either place without a rock-solid source. It is mentioned at Antonino Zichichi's article whose association, as the leader, seems in little doubt. SpinningSpark 18:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm all for pointing out notable fringe organizations that have official sounding names, but I'm not finding sourcing that really gives this group any particular notability. Being linked to the Heartland Institute isn't really worth of a redirect, especially if it likely wouldn't even get mention at that page based on current sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:51, 19 November 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 Guy Richie. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqui Ainsley[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMODEL; there are no reliable sources here for her or her career. Sole reliable source is about her wedding to Guy Ritchie. Trillfendi (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 13:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Guy Richie, I looked for refs independent of him and there aren't any, notability is not inherited. Szzuk (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 22:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Kostrzewa[edit]

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

Biography of a politician, notable only for serving on a non-metropolitan city council. As always, there is no automatic presumption of notability for city councillors -- to actually earn an article, a city councillor must either (a) serve in an internationally famous global city on the order of Vancouver, Toronto, New York City, Chicago or London, or (b) be reliably sourceable as much more notable than most other city councillors. But this cites just three pieces in local newspapers, a volume and depth and range of coverage which literally any city councillor anywhere could always show, and a short tribute statement by the local MP upon her death.
And no, claiming that she was the first member of an underrepresented minority group to hold an otherwise non-notable office is not an automatic notability freebie either -- to make that a notability claim that got her into Wikipedia, she would still have to be singled out for attention in national media and not just the local kind. For one thing, there have been many examples of people having "first woman/person of colour/LGBT/etc." status ascribed to them in error, simply because the person making the claim wasn't aware of the one or more predecessors that actually existed -- which is why "first Chinese Canadian woman to hold political office" isn't an article-clinching notability claim just because a local pennysaver in her own hometown claimed it, if nationalizing sources haven't also reaffirmed it as verified truth.
Bottom line, the sourcing here isn't good enough to get her over WP:GNG, and nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to get her over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - detailed write ups here and here in non-local publications, an honorary LL.D. from University of the Fraser Valley ([39]), a minor municipal facility named for her ([40]), and a eulogy in the House of Commons ([41]), suggest she attained notability beyond the level of common municipal politicians. The Vancouver Sun (not a local publication, and one often cited as a reliable source) further asserts that she is the first woman of Chinese descent to hold political office in Canada, and we should accept that claim absent a reliable competing claim. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chilliwack is part of the Vancouver media market, so the Vancouver Sun doesn't count as non-local coverage for the purposes of nationalizing the notability of a city councillor in Chilliwack. A eulogy in the House of Commons is not a notability freebie, as short speeches like that are delivered upon the deaths of local figures all the time by the local MP. Having a piece of municipal infrastructure named after them, a thing which about half to three quarters of everybody who ever served on a municipal council can also claim about themselves, is not an instant notability pass for a municipal councillor. Having an honorary degree from the local university is not a notability freebie for a municipal councillor. None of this adds up to a strong basis for inclusion. Bearcat (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards keep per WP:GNG based on Ivan's findings. Chilliwack is over 60 miles from Vancouver, I am not so sure we should discount that source as purely local. The subject is also highlighted in the book Celebration: Chinese Canadian Legacies in British Columbia. She is included in an exhibit by the Chilliwack Museum and Historical Society [42]. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a source is local or not is not a question of physical distance — it's a question of media market. Chilliwack gets Vancouver's TV stations and has none of its own, it has a couple of its own radio stations but is served mainly by Vancouver's radio stations, and it has only a weekly newspaper of its own while its daily newspaper coverage comes from the Vancouver dailies. So how many kilometres it is away from Vancouver is irrelevant — it's in the Vancouver media market, because Vancouver is where virtually all of its local media coverage comes from, so Vancouver media doesn't count as extralocal coverage. Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep it's not a WP:BLP1E since she has passed, it's not WP:PROMO since she has passed, she's been covered in a couple different independent sources about the Chinese community in B.C., and she did get a couple local long form obituaries. This is one of the most marginal !votes I've ever made since she's only a local politician, but I think the diversity of the sources documenting her unique life and career is enough to get her over the WP:GNG line. SportingFlyer talk 11:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First Chinese Canadian to hold any political office in all of Canada and was longest serving city councillor in British Columbia are notable and hereto unrefuted. Bk ^{Read Talk} 16:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"First member of an underrepresented minority group ever to do an otherwise non-notable thing" is not a notability criterion, and what has to be "refuted" or "unrefuted" about it is not just whether or not the claim is verifiable, but whether or not she received enough nationalized coverage for it to claim a WP:GNG pass as a special case. That is, the notability test is whether or not her firstness got her covered in sources beyond her own local media market, like The Globe and Mail or the Ottawa Citizen or the Toronto Star, and coverage within her own local media market is not enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've fleshed out the article a little and I've found a book celebrating the lives of Chinese Canadians that takes her out of just "local" coverage territory. In addition, she has an oral history and archive which I linked in external links. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, mostly to give the nominator time to respond to Megalibrarygirl. As soon as the nominator withdraws the AfD, it will be speedily kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 13:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have also added the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal, which she was awarded posthumously. With the book entry, the awards, the coverage (and for me the point is that Chilliwack is not local to Vancouver, and if Vancouver media featured Kostrzewa and Chilliwack in their coverage of the book, that is non-local coverage, which many people outside Chilliwack would have seen) I believe that she meets WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on the argument provided by Ivan, as well as the findings by other editors, which seems to show that she suitably meets the WP:GNG. Greenleader(2) (talk) 21:12, 12 November 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 Draftify. This will please both the nominator and the !voter since draftifying the article means deleting it from mainspace. No consensus to keep the article anyway. UPDATE: Seems the article was copy pasted from the draft which already exists, so I redirected the article to the draft and made a R2 speedy deletion. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Batangas local elections, 2019[edit]

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

This article is almost entirely unsourced, and as such is essentially either original research or crystal ball gazing, and is WP:TOOSOON.

This article was already draftified as inadequately sourced once, and then declined at AFC, showing that the opinion of experienced editors is that it is not in condition for article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify for now until the elections are closer. The elections are just a few months away and more coverage should be available then. With that said, right now the article is not in a state that is acceptable for the mainspace, so it might be better to keep it as a draft for a few more months; perhaps until around February or March when campaigning starts. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 13:39, 12 November 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. Tone 17:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Credit fracking[edit]

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

An unsourced financial neologism, for a purported shady (but allegedly "not illegal") financial scheme. I can find no evidence this term is used (all searches find the regular hydraulic fracturing only). There's no concrete claim about what country or financial system this is supposedly done, or when, or by whom. The article has been tagged unsourced for 7 years; it is the original creator's only contribution. Whether it's a neologism that didn't stick, a hoax, or someone's plot for a really dull novel, there's no reason for it to be a Wikipedia article. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 11:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 11:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 13:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, no evidence of notability, unverifiable FOARP (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete, google is returning it as a term occasionally used, i'd say its a neologism. Szzuk (talk) 13:57, 18 November 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. Tone 17:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheree Winton[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, with no significant roles. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 13:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the cited references provide notability beyond her being Dale Winton's mother, something best covered on Dale Winton's page. A pity since the article is interesting and poignant, but these are not reasons for keeping. FOARP (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She may be best known now as Dale Winton's mother, but a US newspaper from 1958 calls her "England's leading cover girl" and "Britain's most beautiful model".[43] She is featured in the book Fifties Blondes: Sexbombs, Sirens, Bad Girls and Teen Queens, which also says she made a name for herself as a model in men's magazines, before going into films.[44] She also appeared in stage shows, and there is no mention of that in this article either. Her film roles may be considered minor, but she received attention for them - one 1958 UK paper wrote under a photo of her, "She doesn't say a word - and with looks like these, why should she?" [45] There are interviews with her - one in another UK paper from 1958 [46] - and when Dale Winton started on TV, he was referred to as "Former DJ Dale Winton, ..... named after fifties American Western idol Dale Robertson by his film-star mother Sheree Winton".[47] She certainly appears to have been famous in her time, and notability is not lost WP:NOTTEMPORARY RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree per RebeccaGreen. 43.224.84.144 (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She passes WP:GNG thanks to RebeccaGreen's sources. It is correct that she does fail WP:NACTOR for lack of significant roles in notable shows or movies, but a subject can pass one of the two to pass notability check. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Uncontested deletion discussion with 2 time relisting, treating it as a WP:PROD so WP:REFUND applies. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imam khatib (Sunni Islam)[edit]

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

This concept simply doesn't exist. An Imam is a thing, a Khatib is a thing, but there's no such thing as an "Imam-Khatib." No sources support this, and even the article itself was created as "Imam in Sunni Islam," which is already covered in the Imam article. Another user changed the pages name many years ago simply because they thought the current name sounded better, but it's a made up term. Even the Arabic article linked to on the left side of the page is for Imam, and the main Imam article links to the same Arabic page. There's been only one source for years, there isn't enough cited material for this to even be merged, and - this is very significant - it's not a real term. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: yes delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamim000000 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:14, 12 November 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. Tone 17:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xenon (cipher)[edit]

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

Non-notable cipher. In addition to the technical specs [48], the page refers to a single independent source [49], a conference paper doing cryptoanalysis of the scheme. I couldn't find any other coverage. I don't see evidence that this cipher has ever been used in practice, and the creator and his company are non-notable as well. Simply does not pass WP:GNG. BenKuykendall (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, refs are too weak for inclusion. no evidence of notability. Szzuk (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 13:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 13:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a quick search found only sources per nom (plus several books of WP content). Widefox; talk 12:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emerging and growth-leading economies[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Unlike Group of Seven or BRICS which are widely known and an actual existing club of countries, This is only a hypothetical list of countries proposed by BBVA (a spanish bank) and this article is created by User:Research bbva (obvious COI). The coverage is only in papers of the bank. With passing mention in Reuters. DBig Xrayᗙ 12:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 12:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 12:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. Reuters isn't the only source mentioning this. The New York Times and The Economic Times cover the subject, and so does Brookings. And then we have this scholarly source, which is even better. Those were from a quick Google search and are more than sufficient to establish independent notability. We don't have a policy against articles covering "hypothetical" subjects as long as they are backed by reliable sources. As the NYT article suggests, EAGLEs is more of a concept than it is a club of countries. This is no different than having articles about economic terms or acronyms. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters has a 1 line mention.
The New York Times has 1 paragraph for news stating BBVA has introduced this term.
The Economic Times has 1 paragraph for news stating BBVA has introduced this term.
Brookings. has again passing mention in 1 paragraph that is discussing "Anachronistic Acronyms".
academic paper "explore the relationship between economic growth and external resources" of 8 out of 10 countries.

Comment None of these sources that you posted qualifies for "Significant coverage" in reliable mainstream Media. WP:SIGCOV or why this subject is important. You said "backed by reliable sources" but you omitted the crucial point that these sources need to have a having significant coverage of the topic and not just 1 para or passing mentions) --DBig Xrayᗙ 14:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Future contributors to this AfD are encouraged to review the above sources before reading the nominator's misleading commentaries accompanying them. Of all the sources I cited, only one (the Brookings article) has a passing mention. It was also DBigXray who brought up Reuters, not me. I didn't even touch that report.

Here's some more from another quick Google search: this paper, this paper, this book and The Globe and Mail, among (I suspect) several others. If this is not "significant coverage", I'm not sure what is. And did you even bother reading WP:SIGCOV? I'm referring here to the "does not need to be the main topic" part, in case you've missed it. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzcarmalan, let me remind you, to WP:AGF and to keep the debate civil towards fellow AfD contributors. Here are my comments on your new sources.

this paper, is written by "BBVA Research" itself and cannot be used for claiming, Notability.
this paper, is written by "BBVA Research" itself and cannot be used for claiming, Notability. (plus its topic is Indonesia)
this book gives one section on EAGLEs and then goes on to discuss India and China.
The Globe and Mail is investor advice and introduction of the term. again cannot be used to claim Significant coverage.--DBig Xrayᗙ 16:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I feel DBigXray is being overly critical of the evidence for notability. The newspaper articles are more substantial than made out, and in particular, the book An Introduction to Global Financial Markets spends a 30-page chapter on it. Yes, the chapter discusses India and China a lot, but that should not be a surprise as they are two of the biggest EAGLE countries. The chapter is named after this subject, the introduction states that the chapter is about EAGLEs, and the summary repeatedly refers to EAGLEs. To try and claim the book coverage is not significant is quite perverse. SpinningSpark 20:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spinningspark thanks for sharing your kind thoughts on this AfD. Calling my claims as "perverse" is clearly not WP:AGF I am not sure if you read that book, but please note This book only devoted 1 section of that 30 Page chapter, i.e. 5 pages, and even in those 5 pages, the book only used attributed literature from BBVA on EAGLEs as mentioned at every page. The content from BBVA in the book cant be used to judge notability. And after this section the chapter only discusses India and China economy. If this topic is indeed really as notable as you think Why arent we presented with SIGCOV sources (other than passing mentions and sources from BBVA literature)? regards--DBig Xrayᗙ 21:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is just a neologism or a variant on such concepts as Emerging market, developing country, Less developed country (LDC - which is considered old-fashioned now), global south. It's common for every bank which deals with LDCs to pick some that it's comfortable lending to and coming up with a new name or new explanation of why these countries are better credit risks than others. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:09, 17 November 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 Pied Piper of Hamelin in popular culture#Film. The one argument to keep asserted that sources were found, but didn't present any of them. There's really not much we can do with that. If you have sources, you need to tell us what they are. There were two possible redirect targets mentioned. I arbitrarily picked one. If somebody feels there's a better redirect target, feel free to change it. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Electric Piper[edit]

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

In my WP:BEFORE I was not able to find any significant coverage from secondary sources (references in the article are: a passing mention of one line in an interview, cartoon database entry and a press release of Nickelodeon announcing movies which is a primary source). So fails WP:GNG easily. Nothing changed since the first AfD 3 years ago which also had some using the WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES which is not allowed in AfDs (since then Electric Piper article became The Electric Piper hence no notices about 2nd nom). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Pied_Piper_of_Hamelin_in_popular_culture#Film or List_of_Nickelodeon_original_films#2003. I can't find anything to show that it would be considered notable - it hasn't been shown since and it doesn't look like the movie received any true coverage in its day. It could probably redirect to either the pop culture article for the Pied Piper or the list of Nickelodeon films, though. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Are you sure you did WP:BEFORE, there are a number of small references when I did a google search for the program and the fact it aired on an international children tv channel suggests to me it should be passing a threshold. Govvy (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Govvy: Pretty sure I did my WP:BEFORE, as also supported by another person up there. Which small references did you find? To pass notability guidelines, this subject needs multiple significant coverage from reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2018 Invictus Games. There is a clear consensus against maintaining these as separate articles, but the determination of their fate beyond that is unclear. The balance of consensus would appear to favor maintaining this information in the parent article, so there it will go. bd2412 T 14:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelchair rugby at the 2018 Invictus Games[edit]

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

The Games are notable; but each individual sport is not. The routine coverage refers to the games as a whole and not each individual sport. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC) Also nominating:[reply]

There are a lot of templates on both pages which would become unused if these pages were to be deleted. Can they be discussed with this discussion? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete all per nom. While the Invictus Games are very worthwhile and notable, it's a non-professional competition and individual events have received little coverage. Nick-D (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've nominated the 16 Rugby templates for deletion at TfD already. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep into 2018 Invictus Games. I'd suggest merging but the resulting main article might become unwieldy. The games are notable, so this is an appropriate place record results. Yes, it's a non-professional competition (although I'm not sure that message got through to the public) but the coverage and crowds were much greater than many expected, leaving the APC and the sports bodies with a great deal to to contemplate. The quality of the coverage (especially compared to that of the Winter Paralympics) has had an impact that will be felt for years to come. The crowds and public interest had the APC and the sports bodies contemplating the format of future events. So too did the amount of money raised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The wheelchair rugby seems to have attracted widespread coverage in reliable sources Australian newspaper Australian Army UK news Australian radio BCC Sydney Morning Herald United States Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hawkeye7. Wheelchair rugby has always been one of the more prominent paralympic sports, so I'm not surprised that such sources exist. Other sources that I also found. ABC stuff.co.nz Western Star from Newfoundland, Canada. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to 2018 Invictus Games. While the Invictus Games are notable, this is not an elite sporting event, and I don't feel that this level of detail is justified. It doesn't really matter that this sport is one of the more prominent paralympic sports, because this isn't an article about the Paralympics. I would suggest that a table within the main article for the games showing the medallists (teams/nations, not individuals) in each event would be an appropriate level of detail to go to. --Michig (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all again, per nom. Fact is Invictus Games only really notable in host countries. Had BBC prime time coverage in its first edition in London, but nothing since for future editions. Since the inaugural Games, not even highlights on BBC iPlayer in the UK, and Prince Harry is the Patron! I'd say not notable enough to warrant sport-by-sport breakdown. JamesMatthews01 (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there was a lot of coverage on the BBC this time. --Michig (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't have any particular opinion about keep vs delete. My only comment here is that if this is not going to be kept (as appears to be where this is going), a redirect to 2018 Invictus Games per WP:ATD would make sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to 2018 Invictus Games all items adequately referenced, since sources do exist although independent notability has not been established, then delete the text of this article and place the title on a Redirect. -The Gnome (talk) 12:48, 21 November 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 WP:SNOW restore redirect.. Current content meets WP:A7. So Why 10:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Centerlink[edit]

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

Article may not meet the WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Sheldybett (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Not-notable, and violates COI.--Cahk (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

return to redirect (earlier version in history) non-notable spam — billinghurst sDrewth 13:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
noting that the trWP equivalent article was speedy deleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
restore redirect Natureium (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect - subject fails WP:NCORP. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A7, also noting WP:NOTDIR and WP:PROMO concerns. Wikipedia is not, and should not be, a database of every newly registered company there is. Restore redirect to CenterLink and salt if article creator persists. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Think (book)[edit]

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

I was going to PROD it, but it's already been PRODded. Has been ill-sourced OR for ten years now, and the refs have gone from one review to two. Nothing in a WP:BEFORE. Article has been in this state for ten years; no reasonable prospects of evidencing notability. I'd be delighted to be shown wrong, but ... - David Gerard (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Two reviews in reliable sources is enough to show "significant coverage", no? I mean it's never going to be much more than a stub, but that by itself isn't a fatal issue. FOARP (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Both reviews are 404 - are there verifiable copies anywhere? - David Gerard (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Fixed that for you. [50] [51]Vexations (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  cheers! - David Gerard (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BOOKCRIT #1: [52], [53], [54]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment', also mentioned in Are We Free? Psychology and Free Will - "It has also drawn a stern retort by Malcolm LeGault", Project Decisions: The Art and Science - "Blink or ThinK?". Coolabahapple (talk) 12:35, 15 November 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. Tone 17:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Dahiya Badshah[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, fails WP:NACTOR, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG Spiderone 22:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fail WP:NACTOR. 43.224.84.144 (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above although he is well known in the circle he created.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:59, 13 November 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. Tone 17:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lyana Armstrong-Emery[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person whose only stated claim of notability is having been a political candidate. As always, WP:NPOL extends notability to holders of political office, not candidates for it, but there's no indication here that she ever won election to any NPOL-passing office. The sources aren't helping to get her over WP:GNG, either: of the 12 footnotes that were here when I first encountered the article, I had to strip fully half of them as invalid WP:CIRCULAR referencing to other Wikipedia articles, and three of the six that remain are directly affiliated primary sources (self-published content from her own political parties) that cannot support notability at all -- and of the three that are actually media, one is a purely routine list of all the candidates in one of her elections (thus not evidence that she's special), while the other two are short blurbs which are not substantive enough to carry passage of GNG all by themselves as the only independent sources in play. In a nutshell, the sourcing here simply isn't cutting it, and nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to cut it. Bearcat (talk) 05:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My searches fail to uncover WP:SIGCOV. If anyone thinks they can source it, feel free to ping me to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't satisfy WP:NPOLITICIAN as not been in an elected office. And fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 15 November 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. Tone 17:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LD Sharma[edit]

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

No assertion of independent notability, fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTINHERITED applies. I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and current sources provide nothing but a passing mention and most of them are not even reliable. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC) @User talk:GSS Sir is there any way to unlive the article so that I can put some references, he is notable person because he is first Indian first Indian who brought affiliate marketing and was interviewed on almost all news channels, I am contacting all the TV news channels who interviewed him, NDTV and INDIA TODAY has agreed to unarchive those videos,[reply]

Delete - The sources used in the article don't support independent notability for Sharma. Instead they only discuss him in the context of the companies he is working for and/or aren't reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC) @FOARP please mention which sources are not reliable, I would delete them and replace it with authentic references --Neerajmadhuria72014 (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG Spiderone 22:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to a yet-to-be written article about split-nosed dogs. Sandstein 12:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Double-nosed Andean tiger hound[edit]

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

A pseudo-breed, just some obscure urban legend (or, more accurately, a rural one). Even the page's creator said "It sure looks like a hoax" [55]. The only marginally sourced information in this is that that some dogs with split noses have allegedly been found in various places in South America, (first claimed sighting in 1913, by "a British adventurer") and there are photos that purport to show them (though these would be easy to create with GIMP or Photoshop – I could do it myself, and I'm not very good). The article's own text says it all: "No kennel club recognizes the Double-nosed Andean Tiger Hound, nor Andean Tiger Hounds in general, as a specific breed." So, "there's no there there" as the poem goes, nothing of encyclopedic substance or lasting notability. The two sources are very weak. The first is a BBC News story that's just a "gee-whiz, a dog that looks like it has two noses!" entertainment fluff piece with no concrete, encyclopedia-worthy information in it. The second is a cannibalized regurgitation of the BBC bit at Daily Mail, a categorically unreliable tabloid listed at WP:PUS. I found a third via the Wayback Machine [56], that has a passing mention in another fluff story. All of these date to 2007 or later, and if there were really a dog breed to write about, an entire decade to so is more than enough time for something substantial to arise.

Almost everything in this article is unsourced opinion, supposition, and dubious assertions, including even the idea that there is a breed of dog with this feature (rather than, say, a mutation popping up here and there, perhaps because of the founder effect and a genetic bottleneck among dogs in a particular area). If this unsourced stuff is deleted, nothing substantial remains. Our dog breed articles rely (except in the cases of a few crappy stubs which we clean up or delete, as appropriate) on highly reliable sources that catalogue in detail all of the world's known dog breeds and varieties/types, their history, their breed stability and recognition status, their features, etc. No such thing as an "Andean tiger hound" (much less a double-nosed one) appears in these references. Nor has any organisation surfaced (in English, Spanish, or Brazilian Portuguese) claiming to have established such a breed, nor any conservation or governmental group claiming the existence of such dogs as a feral population. The .es and .pt Wikipedias have no article on this, and the only other ones (.fi, .ja) appear to be based on the .en one. I don't bring any alleged breed article to AfD unless I'm damned certain it's not encyclopedic material (established, confirmed breeds may be inherently notable, since they'll appear in non-trivial detail in numerous high-quality sources).
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That is almost a cryptid article, and a particularly badly sourced one at that (...what is that Daily Mail ref doing there?) Unreliable material, garnished with lots of possibles and maybes. This is not encyclopedic material. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And a cryptid article would be okay (Bigfoot, Yeti) if there were proper sourcing. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This story is way weird, but yes, the BBC article substantiates notability. Blashford-Snell is a real person. Issues with the article that don't rise to the level of deletion (e.g., the use of unencyclopedic language) should be dealt with on the page, not here. FOARP (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @FOARP: A single article cannot establish notability (even if the coverage in it were not trivial, which it is in this case). See WP:GNG: in-depth coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources is required. PS: No one questioned anything about Blashford-Snell, and his existence is irrelevant to this AfD. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  But it's not a single article that descirbes this - a search on Google Books turns up multiple hits e.g. 1 2 3. Pointing out that Blashford Snell is a real person was just because the story seemed fake, but it doesn't appear to be. FOARP (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Of the two we can read online, they are trivial mentions; the first in a "bathroom book", the second in an obsolete source with false information (what little we know about the specimens examined so far is that it does not in fact have two noses but a strip of regular skin between its nostrils). So, both sources are unreliable. I feel like I need state the obvious and cite a central policy: "It exists" is not and never has been a rationale for creating an article here. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  So, you are concluding that the source is unreliable based on original research? Or is there a source for nose not being divided? In which case you had better cite it here. And this is not a case of "it exists", because the sources substantiate that the subject has received "significant coverage". FOARP (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  You seem to be confused. WP:NOR applies to article content, not analysis of source materials in internal discussions, or it would not be possible for us to evaluate sources at all. Yes, of course there's a source for it not actually having two noses but a strip of skin between its nostrils, or else why would (or even could) I have mentioned this? If you've not actually read the grand total of three tiny sources provided in the article (only two now present – the Times one got lost somewhere along the way), then I think you should do so before posting further in this AfD. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  What you're saying is: you actually have a source about this animal that discusses it in sufficient detail that you can tell us, based on its disclosure, that it doesn't actually have two noses. I'm curious what this source is, because it would seem to be very useful for weighing the notability of this article. Can you tell us what this source is, please? FOARP (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  I decline, per WP:LMGTFY (which was written to address precisely the tedious, snarky, and not-actually-clever antics you are pulling here). The material isn't substantial (about this dog) anyway, just a passing mention. Worse, some of it is clearly derived from our own article, verging on a copy-paste, so we can't use it as a source, per WP:CIRCULAR. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  You know when you have problems with multiple editors, editors who do not actually care about this article but instead only came here to assess it as part of AfD, the problem may not actually lie with the editors. You said this source exists and is relevant to this article (specifically, you believe it disproves the content of the article), but you don't actually want to share it - that's not a WP:LMGTFY situation, that's a situation where you just don't want to have to actually substantiate what you're saying. FOARP (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  C'mon, man, it's already right here on this page and takes about 15 seconds to find via Google: [57]. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  
  If there were multiple similar articles in sources reliable for the context (not the Daily Mail) that weren't simply duplicates of each other there might be enough to establish notability. This is someone connecting an isolated abnormality to a single unsubstantiated report from 1913. --tronvillain (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: This story isn't "way weird" at all. It's quite routine for random mutations to pop up in limited gene pools. That doesn't make them notable. They become notable (e.g. Manx cat) when there's lots of substantial coverage of them. The very fact that some people mistakenly think this is "way weird" is why there are keep !votes here. People are reluctant to delete "nifty-looking" stuff. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (changed to merge and redirect, see discussion further down page). To the book sources linked above (including Fawcett's original description) we can add that it has an entry in Breverton's Phantasmagoria. I don't know whether or not this dog actually exists. That isn't the question. Nor is whether or not the sources are "scientific". The actual question for AfD is whether the reports of the dog have risen to the level of notability. When a report first made in 1913 is still being discussed in books published a century later, I would say that it had so risen. SpinningSpark 01:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but that doesn't conform to any notability standard (or other keep rationale) on Wikipedia; you're pulling a WP:ITSINTERESTING. Non-trivial coverage in multiple sources is required. We have zero non-trivial coverage. By your rationale, every weird thing mentioned by some "adventurer" a hundred years ago that was also later trivially regurgitated in a "Ripley's Believe it or Not" blurb, and had passing mention in a news story, auto-qualifies for an encyclopedia article even though we can't write anything certain or meaningful about it other than someone said they saw it, and even though it has no lasting significance of any kind. It's not really distinct from the reasoning used to try to keep garage band articles because they played a show at a state music festival and got mentioned in a local newspaper and on a local TV show. No one has made an argument to delete based on whether sources are scientific, nor on whether the dog exists or not (WP has articles on many non-existent things – for which there are multiple instances of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources). Rather, the majority of claims in the article are not sourced, and when pared down to nothing but the sourceable ones, there is nothing encyclopedic left, and nothing that indicates notability: only that the dog was first stated to have been seen by someone specific back when, and has been sighted later, and some people have produced what they claim are pictures. That's not encyclopedia material, it's trivia. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Breverton's Phantasmagoria can in no sense be considered a reliable source for a claim about a real world breed of dog existing. It might be reliable in some other context, but not this one. --tronvillain (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete and redirect to Percy Fawcett. All of the mentions appear to be trivial outside of fringe sources, and there's not even an "Andean Tiger Hound" page to redirect to. --tronvillain (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks to be sourced well enough and there's no end to the number of mentions on google search, whether it's ITV News or the Canine Information Library. This is a notable entry. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the above? "Sourced well enough" in what way? Show us how it is sourced well enough. The two "sources" you have provided are not usable. The first is trivial (though repeated) mention in an unreliable blog/wiki (appears to be WP:UGC) that has very clearly cribbed from our own article (WP:CIRCULAR) and the weak sources we have. The second is also passing mention – less than a sentence. It also makes assumptive claims (e.g., that it is a breed and has been subject to intentional selective breeding) which do not agree with a single other source we have so far, and which does not cite any sources of its own. A third [58], which you added to the article, is also a UGC site (though articles are signed) and which in this case is obviously based on our own material. There's just no substance available to us from which to build an encyclopedic article, sorry. I considered a merge to pachón Navarro, but we have no reliable source for any relationship between these varieties (neither of which are actually breeds). All we have is an unsourced assertion, then other websites repeating our assertion back at us.
PS: Worse yet, what little info we have on the purported photos says they're all from the same family of dogs. We literally do not even have any reliable evidence that this is population of dogs, rather than one mutation that was passed down to two offspring, and which happens to be in the same large general area of the earth that someone generations ago reported seeing a split-nosed dog. It's just meaningless, and it transgresses WP:NOR policy.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion. I don't see either one being a blog. Even if something has only one initial source, if every newspaper picks it up and runs with there would be overwhelming notability. We have veterinarians saying it is a variety of dog. Sorry that I take their word over yours. Is this a great article, no. Is there enough notability to include it, yes. If there are multiple authoritative sources saying they have doubts about the dog, then by all means include it. Nothing is stopping you from adding that to the article. I don't particularly care what happens to this article and whether it gets 50 keep or remove votes. I just happened upon this and I gave my opinion on it's inclusion at wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't a meaningful comment. The facts about what coverage we have (verging on none) isn't an "opinion". You can't hand-wave this away. "I just happened upon this and I gave my opinion" – yes, without anything to back it up. "[I]f every newspaper picks it up and runs with [it] there would be overwhelming notability" has not happened. No one questioned whether it is a variety of dog (what else would it be? a chocolate pie?); that has nothing do with the AfD question. "I don't particularly care what happens to this article" – then please stop making completely invalid arguments to keep it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meles meles SpinningSpark 15:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect ~~Delete~~ - such an anomaly exists per this book, this description by Dr Pippa Elliott (BVMS MRCVS, University of Glasgow), and this source by Dr. Leslie Ross (DVM) who stated: "To be technically correct, it is possible that designating the Double-nosed Andean Tiger Hound as a "breed" is premature. They may just be genetic anomalies within the general strain of Andean Tiger Hounds." ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC) Oh, there's also the Catalburun in Turkey, Pachon Navarro, and Andean Tiger Hound, all in with double noses. So is the Jackalope real? 😊 22:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: what is your rationale for deletion? You have presented evidence that the dog exists and then voted delete. I don't follow your thinking. SpinningSpark 23:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: Hello. I saw a rationale for deletion when I read that. You say the dog, do you mean the one or several individual dogs someone said expressed this characteristic, or the description of a breed that the article explains is 1. not accepted and 2. struggles to assert notability, if that exists. The key point is that an anomaly, inconsistently expressed genetic quirk or whatever criteria is used, does not equal breed, because the 'undesirable' characteristics that occur in some breeds would invalidate their status. Please be polite in responses, I prefer that discussion not be personalised; I frequently remind myself (and others) the discussion is about content, not users. cygnis insignis 08:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cygnis insignis: Impolite? What are you talking about? I politely asked for an explanation of a !vote I could not understand. You are the one making this personal. SpinningSpark 11:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: I didn't think it was, polite, you might consider how productive this thread was, replying as you did, to something you didn't understand, with the insistence you do not understand it, and that is the fault the user you are replying to, not you, who could have done something else and said nothing instead. It is redundant, at best. When I addressed the point I thought was being made at the outset, the substance of my post, you have decided to turn the tables on my incivility in flagging incivility instead, therefore "I am wounded, I am killed by death …" you win mate. Now about those points I raised, would you care to discuss that, are they understood? cygnis insignis 12:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm just as confused. The sources he gave shows notability, especially with Dr Elliot. Plus he barbed about a jackalope which actually has it's own article here. Somewhat perplexing to be sure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think she's confused as well. She's now been through three different votes in successive edits. SpinningSpark 00:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before you begin the character assassination, give me a chance to respond. The only target article I could think of for a redirect or merge would be Hound, and the pictures of dogs I've seen on the internet with that anomaly are not all hounds. Google dogs with a split nose. The context of this article as currently written misses the mark. The sources I cited above are not exactly RS, although the authors being veterinarians give it weight, but not necessarily as it relates to a breed of dog. I won't deny that it gave me pause at first because of the BBC article and the 2 vets but none of the other sources I found are RS that unequivocally establish the dog as a breed. The double-nose is an anomaly found in 3 different breed types as noted above, but I've since seen pictures of a German Shepherd puppy with a split nose. Should we have standalone articles about every anomaly that crops-up in various breeds of domestic and wild animals? I don't think so. Is it a hoax? Not the double nose part which is real but we need RS to verify everything else, including whether or not the double-nose is an inherited breed characteristic (genetic) and not just an anomaly, the latter of which is probably why the double-nosed dog is so rare. Is there a recognized breed called the Andean tiger hound? Not that I could find. Tigers are found in India, Nepal, Indonesia, Russia, and China. Bolivia is in South America where this dog was spotted. It sounds like a hoax that went viral because when you look at the videos of the dogs with the split noses, they look like other recognizable breeds or crossbreeds/hybrids/muts. I know people today who would jump at the chance to go snipe hunting. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 00:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now its getting interesting and there may be a solution in that, a section or even article that discusses those points and linkable from those who look that way, for whatever reason. cygnis insignis 08:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article on a witness, Percy Fawcett - Lieutenant Colonel Percy Harrison Fawcett DSO was a British geographer, artillery officer, cartographer, archaeologist, and explorer of South America. Good god man, he held the Queen's commission!! So I am giving him credibility. There has been excellent use of WP:POL here, some of which I have not seen before. The issue comes down to WP:NOTABILITY - and the jury appears hung. May I recommend removing all uncited material, then reassessing what remains. William Harris • (talk) • 08:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that, and have heard of him. Probably still living it up at that lost city after the disappearing act at Dead Horse Camp. cygnis insignis 09:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested in its probable ancestor, the Tarsus Folknosed Dog from Turkey. There is also a hunting variant, the Turkish Pointer. That split-nosed dogs exist is beyond doubt - but are they notable? William Harris • (talk) • 09:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any single one is too ugly for its own article, but I think the user above cracked that nut, they all get one article (or section, I don't really know about dogs, collectively, only dingos, found this delightful conversation linked at TOL). I've seen one, a rescue dog, it wasn't introduced as a breed by the sheepish looking owner, and I bit my tongue lest he split my nose. cygnis insignis 09:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished the second link, a fascinating area. If those studies are undertaken then there is much more to say in an article, an eternal problem, but the doubts and hypotheses expressed are notable, evidently. Just at a glance, and I know there is much that eludes me, I'll wait to read your opinion before making my mind up. cygnis insignis 09:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Harris, I recommend a closer examination of the sources regarding reliability. I read the Bulgarian journal article earlier but dismissed it as not a RS when I saw WP cited as a source. That’s what happens when anecdotal evidence gets published and spread over the internet - new dog breeds are born. We’ve established the split nose anomaly or genetic mutation/defect, and discovered that a select group of dog owners/breeders in Turkey have been breeding dogs for that characteristic (the split nose), which appears to have cropped up at one time or another in the English Pointer (possibly from in-breeding) as some sources have alluded to. From that, a small subgroup of split nosed dogs have been created, named Catalburun (Turkish Pointer) and maintained. We have no way of knowing the consistency in breeding that particular trait or how many puppies are culled from each litter because they don’t have split noses. The impact factor of the Bulgarian Journal you cited above is very low - they cite thebreedsofdogs.com (2011) and en.WP (2011) as references for the Andean tiger hound and a few other breed types that have the split nose characteristic. I also read a few other articles with circular refs to WP for the Andean tiger hound. Nothing I’ve seen so far has convinced me to change my iVote. I’m of the mind that mention of the split nose anomaly could be mentioned in the main breed type but not as stand alone articles. I just realized we have Pachón Navarro - I’m going to read it now and check sources. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 10:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are two articles, one from a journal and one from an international conference. You cannot dismiss the journal article, but you may dismiss those side issues where it cites Wikipedia, which are non-impacting. As for "impact factor" of the journal, spare me. That these dogs exist is beyond doubt. It is not my concern if these are recognized as breeds or not. Dogs with split noses exist in Turkey, which is my point. They are not a product of some "believe it or not" media release. William Harris • (talk) • 11:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I get your point but, ironically, this article actually is a product of both Ripley’s Believe It and Not and Breverton’s Phantasmagoria per the cited sources and the journal you mentioned is a circular reference to this article. 😅 Oh, well....I think we’ve got it worked out for the most part. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 12:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I knew there might be some hesitation about the low credibility of that journal, so I asked JzG for his opinion since he is well-versed in grading journals, and his response validated my initial thoughts that we can dismiss the journal based on the unreliable sources they’ve used. There’s no question that split-nose dogs exist - dogs with extra toes exist, as do bitches with extra nipples, all scientifically verifiable but does that alone make them a breed or worthy of inclusion as a standalone article, Extra-toed dogs, Extra-nippled bitches? There are a variety of animal breed types, color breeds, performance types, etc. - Palomino horse, Cutting horse, North American Piedmontese, hunting dog, and Double-nosed Pointers which is what we have here; therefore, with reference to the double-nose (or split nose because it’s only one dog nose) we can either delete, merge/delete or #redirect the stand alone articles. I would support a merge/delete, but not a standalone based on what I’ve seen for sources. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 11:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the journal article is WP:RELIABLE or not is irrelevant because I am not proposing its use for a reference on Wikipedia. Its inclusion here is to demonstrate that these type of dogs exist, no more. William Harris • (talk) • 12:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well look what I found: Double-nosed Pointers. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 10:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could support a merged article covering split-nosed dogs in general. I'll change my vote if you're volunteering to write it (or anyone else). SpinningSpark 11:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - I doubt we’ll have any trouble finding good collaborators. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 12:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to a new general article per suggestion by Atsme. SpinningSpark 12:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. Leo1pard (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Blashford Snell is talking about the same animal that the Daily mail featured, which is a mutation with zero credible evidence of descent from this species which, in turn, has zero credible evidence to substantiate its existence. This boils down to a single story of an unusual mutation referenced to a minor legend. Of course it's bollocks, but it's not notable bollocks. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per WP:ATD and per WP:MIDDLEGROUND JC7V (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are sufficient sources for a brief article. Whether the breed actually exists is irrelevant. Unicorns don't exist, but are notable anyway. Note: I came across this article while reading about Percy Fawcett, the English explorer who first reported the breed and is the subject of a recent film. There were 3,879 views in the last 30 days. TFD (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TFD - we have not established it as a breed - there are no verifiable sources that even come close to it. What we have are circular references, multiple media mentions of Percy Fawcett's sighting, some anecdotal reports on dog message boards, wishful thinking by a few owners in possession of fewer than 200 dogs they use to hunt, passing mention in a few books wherein most refer to the Fawcett sighting, and sensationalism over the mutation, which is typically caused by a cleft palate so it can be a fatal defect, depending on the individual dog. That may explain why there are so few. None of the aforementioned qualifies the fictitious or anecdotal persona of the dog as notable per GNG. There is more published about the associated defect, a cleft palate, in RS than about the sighting, and when it is mentioned in RS, it's to debunk it. Pachón Navarro suffers the same lack of RS as does this article, and so does Double-nosed Pointers, which is one target for the redirect, and another is Percy Fawcett. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 00:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So the article can say that Colonel Percy Fawcett sent to map the Brazil-Bolivia border for the Royal Geographical Society in 1906, claimed to have seen the animal. No evidence has been found to support the existence the breed, although various sightings have been reported. Your comments on breed are semantic because it implies that the term can only refer to proven breeds. We can refer to fictitious breeds as well. We are also able to refer to fictitious people and events. TFD (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit, I started off thinking along the same lines that you are now, and then I did the research. My argument is simple - it is all about a bifid nose, more commonly called a split or double-nose, and it happens in humans as well. It is typically associated with cleft palates. Anecdotal evidence says some of the dogs don't have cleft palates, but there is not one RS that verifies any of the breed information as anything but anecdotal. Google "bifid nose in spaniels" and look at the images. It happens in multiple breeds - and it's only rare because few dogs survive the cleft palate. It doesn't make any sense for serious breeders who are trying to breed top quality dogs while maintaining a breed standard to purposely breed defects into their bloodlines. The surgery to correct the problem is very expensive - not all dogs survive it - and the few dogs that do survive from birth are indeed rare but that doesn't make it a breed. The misinformation about these bifid pointers is rampant on the internet, and it's born primarily of myth and misinformation. Consider the sources and notice the keywords in the few articles by authors who took the bait hook, line and sinker. Key terms: extremely rare, and not all of these dogs will sport the split nose characteristic of the breed. It speaks volumes. Having a bifid nose does not make it a breed, and as I said above, the bifid nose on a dog has far more RS available that are backed by science than the fairytales being spread about these bifid dogs - ^{referring to the "double-nosed Andean tiger hound". 21:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)} ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 01:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, we do not know what if anything Fawcett or others saw. Probably unicorns are just a garbled story of rhinos, but it is still a separate topic, not a redirect. Having an article about a topic does not mean it actually exists. TFD (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment 'making a film about Fawcett', also did not know that, and pondered on it weighting discussion to keep. People looking that up will be spun around on the spot at this article, it is a dead end, but there seems to be an opportunity for them to be redirected to … ~~Bifid dog~~ [eep!], Velopharyngeal insufficiency (Canis)? I wouldn't know, obviously, but want to know what the target of a merge and redirect is? And where is the twist on the classic gag, "My dog has two noses … " cygnis insignis 06:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That could work in theory (though "Bifid dog" doesn't make sense; that would mean a dog split in two). However, we can't just go create articles on every medical condition in every species. They have to be independently notable as subtopics, or account for so much material at a main article that a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE split is required for article-length reasons. Otherwise, they get merged, too. E.g., we have no Albinism (canine) or [insert 10,000 more examples], but we do have Hip dysplasia (canine), about which the real world has written a tremendous amount in reliable sources. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, this is exhausting, I wish I'd made up my mind in the first forty five seconds. I'm now thinking delete and recreate a redirect when the N of the condition is established in the target: while not being the business of this discussion, users able to establish its scope and make a decent start of it (if it is notable) are present and primed. cygnis insignis 17:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect is fine by me (nominator), as long as it's pruned to the material from actually reliable sources and any unsourced or dubious-source, speculative crap is removed. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:43, 19 November 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. czar 20:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damon's Grill[edit]

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

Article rests on two sources, both its own website. There are only 94 Ghits. Khornloke (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not substantiated by reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, article appears to be way out of date if this article - "Damon’s isn’t dead – new restaurant opening in northeast Ohio" from Columbus Business First is anything to go by, it might contribute to notability but more is needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fairly clear WP:SIGCOV failure, due to a lack of potential sources.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 10:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Joseph Aje[edit]

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

The only sources here are the website of the organization he headed. The only additional source I found in a websearch was a blog. There is no policy backing for the claim that "bishops of major denominations are default notable". This boils down to very questionable value judgements on what is major, ignoring that in some areas the Catholic Church is of little to no impact, and often these dioceses are very small and ignored both in the larger church and by local people. The diocese here has 60,000 members which is one half of one percent of the population of the area it covers. Unless people can produce actual third party reliable sources that cover Aje, I do not think we should keep the article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he is a bishop of the Catholic Church (would he be up for deletion nomination were he a European or American bishop?). Although 60,000 is comparatively small, that's still a rather large religious following. There are mayors and other leaders on Wikipedia with far less people under their jurisdiction. I agree that the article needs additional third party sources. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to additionally point out that the other bishops of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sokoto all have articles: Matthew Hassan Kukah, Michael James Dempsey, Edward Thaddeus Lawton. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Through a quick Google search I found multiple mentions of him: AllAfrica, Catholic News Service of Nigeria, The Guardian, Africa Files, Reflections on Friends, Comrades, Heroes, Agenzia Fides, Zenit, Vanguard, and Dominican Life. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some references (and additional information). It is difficult finding sources from the pre-digital era for countries which have not yet digitised newspapers, journals, etc from that time. However, I have found some independent, reliable, post-2000 sources which I think are sufficient to establish notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sourcing aside, I have just found WP:BISHOPS, which states "The bishops of major denominations are notable by virtue of their status. This includes Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican Communion bishops." So Bishop Aje, as a Roman Catholic bishop, is notable by virtue of his office, and does not need independent coverage to establish notability. Although that's an essay, not a guideline - but as he does have independent coverage, he meets both WP:GNG and WP:BISHOPS RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Musters past GNG. Also several book sources mention him [59], if only sparingly . -Indy beetle (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:BISHOPS, Roman Catholic Bishops are notable. This is a reflection of the fact that they almost always have enough sources to pass GNG. Anyway, if you don't agree with WP:BISHOPS, he passes GNG anyway as noted by others above. I'd also note the risk of systemic bias in deleting articles about African people/places/things/etc which might have less than stellar sourcing, since newspapers/books/journals/magazines/etc from African countries are less likely to be found in online databases/searches. SJK (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BISHOPS. St Anselm (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per SJK, said subject has sufficient sources to establish notability, hence he meets WP:BISHOPS. It is also important to note that systemic bias is a bug, not a feature.

Is Nutin 01:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soltesh (talk • contribs)

Keep. We have always considered that diocesan bishops of major churches are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Bishops of major denominations are notable per se. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, so the take away is that if a Church meets some arbitary definition of "major Church" no matter how small the actual groups someone leads, they are major. While A person like Michael John U. Teh who lead at least 10 times this many Latter-day Saints in the Phillipines and was and is a clear worldwide leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has his article deleted. Also, I want to know where all these default defenders of the guidelines on "bishops of major churches" are when these guidelines are demoted and relagated to non-importance in discussions of significant leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: I think the reality is the LDS Church functions differently from other Christian groups such as the Roman Catholic Church or Anglican Communion. Catholic and Anglican Bishops are given a lot of leeway in how they govern their dioceses; they are subject to a higher level of authority (national church bodies for Anglicans, the Vatican for Catholics), but despite this subordination you can find a great degree of variety in policies between dioceses in both Catholicism and Anglicanism. By contrast, the leaders of the LDS Church equivalent to dioceses, which could be considered to be either stakes/districts or areas, are given far less leeway to implement distinctive local policies. The LDS Church is subject to much more central control than Catholicism or Anglicanism, and hence there is much less scope for local leaders to distinguish themselves by doing something different. Also, both the Catholic and Anglican churches have for decades (even centuries) been beset by controversies and power struggles and factions, and those controversies/struggles/factions are quite transparent – you will see them expressed in church-internal publications (magazines, theology journals, etc), and they are quite accessible and interesting to the secular media and to academia, and of course bishops inevitably have a central role in them. By contrast, the culture of the LDS Church is very much to avoid public controversy among its leadership – if any equivalent controversies happen in the LDS Church, they are very much behind closed doors, and nobody outside of LDS leadership circles knows much about them. Also, LDS leaders don't tend to become involved in secular politics to the same degree as Catholic Bishops sometimes do. The end result, is that Anglican and Catholic Bishops tend to be a lot more interesting and noteworthy and notable, even to a non-religious observer, to similar level LDS leaders. And, given enough of them are noteworthy in these ways, it tends to develop into a default assumption that they are noteworthy (not just within Wikipedia, even in the secular media.) So rather than being motivated by some sort of anti-LDS bias or animus, I think this outcome is simply inevitable given the LDS Church's culture. SJK (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you saying this is a WP:POINTY nomination because you're miffed that articles on LDS leaders get deleted? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a nomination motivated by the fact that articles sourced to only the websites of an organization that was run by the subject should not exist. While some of your points may stand, I think they also fail. At least on their surface many of these articles on bishops do not show that they in any way do many of the things you describe. The LDs equivalent is clearly areas not stakes. Areas, especially those outside the US, have a lot of leeway in implementing a lot of policies. Also if you look at say the article on Benjamin De Hoyos you will see area leaders do get involved in what they feel are moral issues. I will conced this is a much more reserved involvment than that of some Catholic leaders. However it is complicated in another way because virtually all members of area presidencies are general authorities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are public controversies, disagreements, on how to apply Catholic policies between Catholic Bishops. For example, there is a policy saying politicians who vote for legalised abortion (or who vote against abortion bans) are to be denied communion. But some Bishops want to enforce that policy vigorously, others aren't very keen on enforcing it. You can often assign Bishops to one camp or the other just based on their public statements–e.g. in the US, Thomas Paprocki (Bishop of Springfield, Illinois), publicly announced he was banning Senator Durbin from communion for voting against an abortion ban, while Chicago Archbishop Blase J. Cupich went on TV to say he would be hesitant to do something similar. Can you point to similar public disagreements between LDS area presidencies, or even general authorities? I'm not aware of any; if there are any at all, they are far less frequent than in the Catholic Church. The more transparent culture of the Catholic Church (and other churches too) means there is simply far more interesting stuff to say about their leaders than about most LDS leaders, which is one of the reasons why reliable sources (and hence Wikipedia) tend to pay individual Catholic leaders far more attention than individual LDS leaders, even if the number of church members they oversee is similar. LDS leaders don't disagree with each other publicly, any disputes they may have stay behind closed doors, Catholic Bishops don't hide their disagreements to anywhere near the same extent. SJK (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Japanese supercentenarians. Tone 17:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kama Chinen[edit]

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

No independent notability besides her exceptional longevity. This person's entry in the list of Japanese supercentenarians is enough, per WP:NOPAGE. I performed a redirect on 8 November but it was reverted on 11 November, thus I'm seeking consensus to re-instate the redirect. Many similar articles about non-notable people who lived over 110 years were recently merged or deleted. — JFG ^talk 04:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable oldster.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only sparse WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia on how she relates to other peoples longevity milestones or longevity milestones for various jurisdictions. She lived. She avoided the Reaper longer then most. She died. Classic case of WP:NOPAGE. Given this individuals apparent obscurity, I think heavy weight should be given to her and her family's desire for anonymity as well. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Japanese supercentenarians. Tone 17:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misao Okawa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent notability besides her exceptional longevity. This person's entry in the list of Japanese supercentenarians is enough, per WP:NOPAGE. I performed a redirect on 8 November but it was reverted on 9 November, thus I'm seeking consensus to re-instate the redirect. Many similar articles about non-notable people who lived over 110 years were recently merged or deleted. — JFG ^talk 04:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable oldster.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In her own words, if someone asked me why anyone would attempt to write a stand-alone article about her, "I wonder about that too." No meaningful information here, therefore we're left with the ever-present WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia fluff about her family, health, and age records for various other people or jurisdictions. Classic desperate padding to try to avoid WP:NOPAGE. A list entry is all she needs and indeed, she already has three. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep She was the 5th oldest verified person ever at the time of her death. She is definitely notable RightGot (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No policy says that just having a pulse for an unusually long time is inherently notable. Even supercentenarians are subject to the same threshold of notability as everything else; significant coverage in secondary sources, which is not the case here. Simply reaching an arbitrary age is not, itself, cause for a standalone article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Japanese supercentenarians. Curiously enough, I am closing the AfD again. However, this time it seems that the consensus is clear. Tone 17:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tane Ikai[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent notability besides her exceptional longevity. This person's entry in the list of Japanese supercentenarians is enough, per WP:NOPAGE. I performed a redirect on 8 November but it was reverted on 9 November, thus I'm seeking consensus to re-instate the redirect. Many similar articles about non-notable people who lived over 110 years were recently merged or deleted. — JFG ^talk 04:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable oldster.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A bunch of random stats about managing to ward off the reaper for an unusually long time is not evidence of notability. As per usual, WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia fluff about her family and health. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her, which demonstrates how the article fails WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on three different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She was in the top 5 oldest verified people ever at the time of her death and she held the title of "oldest verified Japanese person ever" for about 20 years before she was finally surpassed. She is certainly notable. RightGot (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a tournament to see who can maintain a pulse the longest. Where are the sources besides the thoroughly routine coverage already present? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:12, 13 November 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. Closing the AfD because there is no consensus that it should be deleted. If anyone wants to merge, he/she is free to do it (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Bridge Wildlife Ranch[edit]

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

The only source (the citation and the external link are the same) is self-published. A WP:BEFORE search turned up some user reviews (TripAdvisor and the like) and some tourism recommendations (e.g. this and this), but no independent in-depth WP:RS coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 07:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There are some articles, some local (eg this [60], this [61] and this [62]), some not (eg this [63]), but the ranch did make international news when giraffe twins were born (eg this in the UK [64], this in Malta [65] and this elsewhere in the US [66]). I think it probably just meets WP:GNG, although as with many articles nominated for deletion, it could do with improving. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to locality? Hyperbolick (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - a merge to the nearest entity might be appropriate (not the caverns...but what?). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Squeaks by WP:GNG. In addition to the sources presented above, here is another source, further verifying that WP:AUD is met: article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Per RebeccaGreen, who found a bunch of sources. I'm not sure why this was relisted. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 15:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shenandoah High School[edit]

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

WP:G6 Only one school on the page is notable. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am also unconvinced that the Ohio school is notable, but since I have already made my one allowed deletion nomination for the day, I will wait until some later date to focus on that issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 4 schools now included, all with blue links per WP:DABMENTION
Keep 4 U.S. public high schools with the identical name. A useful disambig.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting dabmention above. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep: This is a perfectly fine disamb page and has nothing to do with AfD.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page originally had only one blue link, that's why I nominated it. If there wasn't a delete vote I would have withdrawn my nomination. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kumortuli and redirect. Rationale: The !vote for redirection was policy based. There were four keep !votes. Two of these were immediately discounted—one which confused the topic with something entirely different and another which asserted it had to be kept because it was not a company—and of the other two, the article creator's rationale was rebuffed with multiple policies. Finally, there was one "Weak" keep. This, unfortunately, was insufficient to counter the !votes against keeping the article in its current form, and the nominator is not averse to merging and redirecting. Since DBigXRay has already moved the necessary material for the merge, redirection follows. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 13:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dhakeshwari Mata Temple, Kumortuli[edit]

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

The entire article is actually written based on a single paragraph, which is from an article in Anandabazar Patrika and covers a variety of interesting flavors of the city (and their backstories), in an entertainment supplement.

All other pieces cover a different temple of the same name in Bangladesh.

Also, the line in lead:-- Now, the temple of Kolkata is quite deserted as most of the people are not aware of its historical backdrop and importance can't be sourced to the Scroll piece, as is supposed to be.

Pathetic prose quality which resembles machine translation from the corresponding Bengali sources about an entirely different establishment.

I can't find anything resembling significant coverage on the issue, either.∯WBG^converse 09:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Winged Blades of Godric can you link the "entirely different establishment", you quoted. It may help the AfD. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray, umm......Machine translation from a variety of Bengali sources that covered the one in Dhaka and from the sole one, that covered the subject.I am sorry, if I was not clear enough. ∯WBG^converse 13:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kumortuli which is the settlement/neighbourhood where this temple is located. As is generally done for churches/temple/prominent building articles not individually notable. This temple is not individually notable, as I could not find reliable sources covering the Kolkata temple with a WP:SIGCOV. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray, Merge or redirect? If we start merging bits of info about all temples in a locality to the article about the place, well.......

On a side-note, I guess Now, the temple of Kolkata is quite deserted as most of the people are not aware of its historical backdrop might be real true, from an OR perspective:-) ∯WBG^converse 13:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The unsourced OR can be discounted while merging. Whether we like it or not, The settlement articles does need a section on religion, social gatherings and festivals. So it is not an unreasonable suggestion to merge it to the settlement article. Merge and Redirect, is what I meant, to be specific. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and copied the content to Kumortoli as it was needed there anyway, irrespective of the result of this AfD. --DBig Xrayᗙ 10:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep: This idol have a historical significance, and that's why leading newspaper from west bengal covered this topic (Saying because you quoted @WBG). And original temple of this idol is national temple of Bangladesh. So it's importance is cleared. But due to some reason original idol was taken to kolkata, and similar temple was build up here. So considering notability and historical importance this article must be kept. And there is no reason to redirect or merge. Thanks. 🦁 শক্তিশেল ࿈ ^⌨ 14:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: শক্তিশেল (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Keep: There is coverage in multiple sources as cited in the references, which establishes the notability of the subject. Pathetic prose quality and dispute over one line the lede can't be the criteria for deletion. BengaliHindu (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BengaliHindu, All other pieces cover a different temple of the same name in Bangladesh.Thus, please provide sources that grant significant coverage to the subject.∯WBG^converse 04:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article is closely associated with another temple in Bangladesh. This is why those sources are relevant and hence cited. There are already enough citations to establish notability. BengaliHindu (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The nom may be right that there is some misuse of sources going on. However, some of the articles on the Bangladesh temple (the sacredsites source for instance) do confirm that the original idol was taken from the temple during partition to Kumortuli. The Kumortuli temple thus does have some historic sgnificance, although sourcing is still weak. SpinningSpark 21:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A one-line trivial mention in a source (which doesn't even mention the name of the temple) and a paragraph in some miscellaneous reporting, doesn't confer any notability.∯WBG^converse 04:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessarilly robust arguments from the article creator ——SerialNumber54129 13:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Firstly, ...a paragraph in some miscellaneous reporting, doesn't confer any notability... I don't know about any guideline like that, please enlighten me @WBG, Secondly, in this article, there are two district part, one history of idol and another one is History of reestablishing. And more than one references are accordingly confer the fact separately. 🦁 শক্তিশেল ࿈ ^⌨ 06:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

শক্তিশেল, see WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOPAGE.∯WBG^converse 07:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also read WP:SIGCOV which states If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. and Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention.Best,∯WBG^converse 07:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing User:Winged Blades of Godric's claim: To the admin and others, User:Winged Blades of Godric claims that ABP reported in a paragraph in some miscellaneous reporting. But fact is, this reporting is not like that. It's a unique reporting under a common categorized title "কলকাতা করচা" (kolkata korcha) where brief news about Kolkata's heritage fact are being reported. In any newspaper there be a sectional categorized title like Political, Sports, Regional, Advertisement, India, Foreign, etc. Similarly ABP, leading bengali newspaper, stylized and made sub-section to categorize. Like উত্তরবঙ্গ (North Bengal), দক্ষিণবঙ্গ) (South Bengal), কলকাতা (Kolkata), নদিয়া-মুর্শিদাবাদ (Nadia-Murshidabad) etc. Similarly, "কলকাতা করচা" is a sub sub sectional catagory. So don't be confused. Thanks. 🦁 শক্তিশেল ࿈ ^⌨ 08:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
শক্তিশেল, "কলকাতা করচা" is a sub sub sectional category, (as you state).

And, that sub-sub-section consists of 11 paragraphs on 11 miscellaneous aspects of trivia.

So, 1/11 th of a sub sub sectional category---you've surmised it quite well.

Thanks, ∯WBG^converse 08:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please be like a daily newspaper reader. Any reader can distinguish which one is in a paragraph in some miscellaneous reporting and what is sub catagory. Assumption is good but misleading is not welcomed. Thanks 🦁 শক্তিশেল ࿈ ^⌨ 09:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly have my confirmation about the role played by your competency in English language, in these nonsensical replies.∯WBG^converse 10:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also this news in ABP surly passed as per guidelines. Because, 1. Independent: no third party reporting, 2. reliable sources: ABP is one one of the oldest newspaper (96 yrs +) , one can verify 3. Significance: already discussed. It's historical significance have no doubt. Dhakeswari Idol is not like any other idol. It's a idol "National temple of Bangladesh" , due to some problem it was taken to kolkata and reestablished. So once again I voted for keeping this article. Thanks. 🦁 শক্তিশেল ࿈ ^⌨ 08:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have certain problems in comprehending English.

ABP is a single source and the guidelines state that we need sources(I emphasize on the last s).Singular-plural; eh?!

Significant coverage means that the sources (I re-emphasize on the last s) cover the subject in a quite dedicated manner.Not, in 1/11 th of a sub sub sectional category (in your words).We don't need to delve into original research to highlight it's significance.∯WBG^converse 08:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, my friend is now collecting typo. Ha ha. Anyways, please don't fuss here, let others to think about this issue. You mentioned "how this article void the guidelines" and I already given all supporting data to keep this article. Let's admin to take this discussion to a conclusion. Thanks. 🦁 শক্তিশেল ࿈ ^⌨ 09:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a social media and your first line is unwelcome in a professional environment.∯WBG^converse 10:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about a religion and God but not a promotion of a company. It must be there on Wikipedia.JPL549 (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There really isn't any significant coverage of this temple specifically. Dhakeshwari Temple already covers the history of the idol sans citations in the History section. This can be improved using these sources and ideally moved to a dedicated section.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I think you have missed the point. Dhakeswari Temple and Dhakeswari Mata Temple both are entirety different. First one is in Dhaka, Bangladesh and second one is in Kolkata. And significance of second temple is reestablishing of original idol which was taken from first temple due to some reason. Hope you got the point. Thanks 🦁 শক্তিশেল ࿈ ^⌨ 16:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using a bolded "oppose" with every comment you make. It makes it look like you are casting multiple !votes and the closer will have problems sorting it out. A bolded "comment" is the convention, or some other neutral term. In fact, please leave off with the overuse of bolding altogether. SpinningSpark 17:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand your point. But it looks like the original temple with its replica idol continues to be notable while the Kolkata temple with the original idol is not. The Dhaka temple's article already contains most of the information mentioned in the Kolkata temple's article, albeit without citations. My suggestion is to merge the Kolkata temple's article into the Dhaka temple's article ideally within a dedicated section. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: As per hindu Mythology, idol is very significant and if idol is about more than 800 years old then automatically it have a antique value. Similarly if it is in an established temple then automatically temple also get an antique value. In this case temple in Dhaka got that notability and it must have.

During partition of bengal, millions of Bengali hindu people came to West Bengal to protect their respect and their adorable deity. Dhakeswari idol also was shifted and re-established for that reason. So re-establishment of Dhakeswari idol in Kolkata is not only simple re-establishment. Rather history of partition of bengal also engaged with it. Thanks. 🦁 শক্তিশেল ࿈ ^⌨ 05:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a difficult one. I see that the text of this article also appears in the article Kumortuli (now - it may have been added recently), and in the Dhakeshwari Temple article. It seems to me that, while it may be possible to establish the notability of the original Dhakeswari Mata idol, and certainly of the original Dhakeshwari Temple site, it is more difficult to establish notability for the temple in Kumortuli. I am not at all clear on guidelines for notability of idols of deities, or of incarnations of deities. Does the antiquity of this idol (with the fact that it is still being worshipped), give it presumed notability? I don't know. If this separate article is deleted, I suggest that the Dhakeshwari Temple article section on History have a sub-section called Original idol, so that it's more prominent. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaGreen, yes, After the AfD was started I had gone ahead and copied the content to Kumortoli as it was needed there anyway, irrespective of the result of this AfD. yes, some of the idols are individually notable in India, but if we are going to keep this article for the idol, then the article title would need to be changed to reflect the same. --DBig Xrayᗙ 10:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, in Dhakeshwari Temple article this fact (reestablishment) must be included. But this idol again an established idol (note: not a museum show piece Idol). So, it has a separate notability. Lots of idol were kept in Idian Museum or any other museum, but it is not in their category. Here this established idol again reestablished and still worshiped as before. Similarly replica is also Worshiped in Dhakeshwari Temple. So categorizing with every notable idol is not justified. As its an established idol like any other temple, e.g. Kalighat Temple, Dakhineswer Temple and many more, it must have separate wiki article. Not only this one, I think other Antique established idol must have separate wiki article.

Also Title (Dhakeshwari Mata Temple) will not confused in future in any other case. Because name of the temple is scripted on the board itself, like every temple have a name plate. So that will not make an issue in future.

Thanks. 🦁 শক্তিশেল ࿈ ^⌨ 12:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:শক্তিশেল Articles are kept not simply because WP:ILIKEIT or You do. The Idol has to have individual notability. It needs to have its own Significant coverage in reliable mainstream media/books/journals. if you can produce that then this article can be renamed to the Idol article and kept. if not, then based on WP:NOTINHERITED, it is better to merge it with the Dhakeshwari Temple Dhaka (Idol Section) and Kumortoli settlement article. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This matter already discussed earlier. Please scroll up. Thanks. 🦁 শক্তিশেল ࿈ ^⌨ 13:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cant find such sources that prove individual notability of the idol. Can you share the diff of that comment ? User:Winged Blades of Godric was it ever provided ? --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

source, This one individual Reporting. Ofcource it has an oposition but why its an individual reporting also discussed earlier. Thanks 🦁 শক্তিশেল ࿈ ^⌨ 13:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 15:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fiber rope[edit]

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

Topic not independent of Rope see also [this] afd. To explain further, the type of fibre a rope is made from certainly effects the performance of the rope, but does not in fact make it something other than rope!!.

Would we have an article for "Red rope" and another for Blue? What about "Floating rope" and "Sinking rope" ? Roxy, the Prod. wooF 00:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a duplication of Rope, and not notable separate to it. FOARP (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fibre rope is commonly contrasted with wire rope, which is significantly different. For example, see the Handbook of Fibre Rope Technology – a book of 432 pages – or Advantages of Fiber Rope Over Wire Rope – a respectable paper. Note also that we have numerous articles about particular types of rope including arithmetic rope, bolt rope, dynamic rope, fixed rope, kernmantle rope, Manila rope, natural rope, skipping rope, static rope, tight rope, &c. The nominator will be especially interested to note that there's even a dog rope! Their vision that we should delete everything but rope seems too simplistic and, per WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE, we should retain all these various strands as we weave them into our web of knowledge. Andrew D. (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You really are a piece of work. -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 19:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Roxy the dog: I dislike Andrew's way of interacting with other editors, and pretending to know more about seemingly everything that happens to show up at AFD than he actually does, as much as the next guy, and for all I know (I haven't looked into it, nor do I intend to) the above comment may be more of the same, but you're just giving him and his friends mud to throw with comments like the above. I implore you to strike it as it's only going to make dealing with the problems in play here more difficult. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that due to the artificial behaviour constraints here, editors are reluctant to point out shitty behaviour, and consequently Davidson thinks he's immune from criticism. He isn't. Roxy, the Prod. wooF 16:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Arguments of Andrew D seem sound. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Is there such a thing as non-fibre rope? -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 12:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Easily surpasses WP:GNG. Some sources include, but are not limited to: [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 19 November 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. This discussion has truly resulted in no consensus among many long-established editors. And newer as well. I think WP:IDONTLIKETHEM should perhaps link to a different essay, as pointing to the newbie status or sock/meat status of !voters is not a valid !vote reason, and should be an argument to avoid. Yes, sockpuppet !votes should be discounted, but that doesn't make the opposing position correct, inherently. This is a specialist as well as a general encyclopedia, but the sources for keep are a bit underwhelming, still. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus Award[edit]

If you came here because of the obvious off-wiki recruiting as evidenced by the WP:SPA activity in this discussion and on talk, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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

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

Obscure award given by a NN organization catering to an obscure micro-genre. Toddst1 (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See also:
SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: plenty of subculture articles are notable, this is no exception. --Jtle515 (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion about the award given by an organization whose article was deleted at AFD, not about deleting the article on Filk music. Toddst1 (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that. It's still notable. --Jtle515 (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: no more obscure than any small arts organization, and plenty of those have articles. Randwolf (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the award, not the WP:NN organization. Examples of similar awards from NN entities:

Toddst1 (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the deletion records, those were all low-effort articles with almost nonexistent news presence. The Pegasus Awards have multiple notable mentions in reputable publications. --Jtle515 (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Filk is fairly obscure, but it has reach. Best-selling author Seanan McGuire was a filker before she was a published novelist and has won a Pegasus award some seven times. Astronaut Buzz Aldrin once read Jordin Kare lyrics on live television; Jordin was another multiple recipient. The audience the Pegasus award serves may well be larger than that of more prestigious arts awards. Randwolf (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a long established and prestigious set of international awards, with considerable information on the web pages. I do not see any reason the article would not be kept. Everyone active in this musical genre knows and values these awards, and that's thousands of people in Canada, Britain, Germany and USA along with a small number in other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGarthson (talk • contribs) 22:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)— JGarthson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is a local Ohio music club giving this award, not a national or international body. A huge number of winners of this award are redlinks and many of the rest have this one award as their only claim of importance. Toddst1 (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Ohio Valley Filk Fest, like the San Diego Comic-Con, is a local event with international reach. Randwolf (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the award is presented in Ohio doesn't mean it's an Ohio-only thing. People from all over the world nominate, vote, and attend the award ceremony. --Jtle515 (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Pegasus Awards are administered by the OVFF concom, but the convention is international in membership, and is generally regarded as the subculture's preeminent (and for music, only) awards. The notability of winners is irrelevant, since obviously as a small subculture most participants (even prominent ones) won't have their participation rise to the level of notaiblity; winners are generally notable for other things, where they are, such as professional music or writing. Joshua Kronengold (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, interesting you turn up here now. How were you alerted to this discussion? You've never edited the article on these awards, but according to your user page, you're active in a number of off-wiki oraganizations that may have an interest. Also, can you support your assertions that this is an international organization? Toddst1 (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I overheard that this was going on (as will often happen when there's an AfD of a topic of interest to a community) and figured it was worth checking out. I've never been a member of the OVFF concom (I've attended OVFF as a paying member, which doesn't seem to break AP:COI; as such I've got personal experience of the international nature of the con's membership, which generally is half flyers and always has german and/or UK members; obviously this isn't notable information but it's important because it contradicts what was said in this thread). [77] seems to be a relevant (if thin) article. As is [78]. And File 770 generally reports the winners and nominees of the Pegasus award: Links to artices on the Pegasus nominees/winners for those years from 2014-2018 Joshua Kronengold (talk) 05:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mneme: Thanks Josh. Where did you "overhear" this? Toddst1 (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's relevant, particularly given your insinuations and bullying on this page. Accusing Sarek of bullying in that context is rich. Particularly in terms of pressing me; my pedigree of documenting the Pegasus awards is pretty long, if you do a search, even if I've never bothered to do a direct edit here on it. 07:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mneme and Toddst1: I've known Mneme for many, many years, probably more than 20. I've been active in the filk community since the early 1990s. At that time I was living in Massachusetts and became active in MASSFILC, as I believe he was too-- certainly he has been for many years. --Thnidu (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep digging, Todd, keep digging. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Awards are notable if the organization is, like, really notable, and the awards generate significant interest from secondary sources. That doesn't seem to be the case here. If "everyone in the genre knows these awards", then that's great--but that doesn't mean that the award has become notable. Sarek, I looked at your sources, and I'm sorry, but they are a. just really thin and b. do not discuss the awards. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That first io9 source talks about using the Pegasus awards as a source for academic study. And I would argue that the organization gets notability from the award, more than the other way around. And these are the primary awards in the field, given to people who are notable enough for articles here, like Tom Smith, Leslie Fish, Seanan McGuire, and others.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reason anyone cares about the AMPAS is that they give out the Oscars. Can you name, off the top of your head, the organizations that give out the Emmys, Tonys, Grammys, and so on? If so, you are very rare. It is quite usual that a media award is better known than its presenting body. In fact, I can't think of any major award that is presented by a more famous organization. --Jtle515 (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's see:

blue-link to article: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences - Oscars
blue-link to article: Academy of Television Arts & Sciences - Emmys
blue-links to article: American Theatre Wing and The Broadway League - Tonys
blue-link to article: The Recording Academy - Grammys

and so on.

In contrast,

Ohio Valley Filk Festival is a redirect as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ohio Valley Filk Fest.

What part of NN award from a NN org with a bunch of fans coming here as a result of off-wiki canvassing and Sarek's bullying don't you get? Toddst1 (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Pegasus awards are the prestige award for the Filk music genre. They are referenced in papers published in peer-reviewed journals. It is not restricted to the US, but has been awarded to US citizens, Canadians, UK citizens, and Germans.Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Pegasus awards are a notable Filk award, whose results are reported in appropriate periodicals such as Xenofilkia and File770. While the page could use more secondary sources, there is no derth of such sources available, either offline or online. More, the deletion proposal mis-represents and neglects the original proposal for deletion of OVFF in 2015, which specifically had a result of Merge to the more notable Pegasus Awards page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mneme (talk • contribs) 07:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep To be honest there is not much in the way of sourcing, but it is (more or less) enough I think for a keep.Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reasons given for deletion are inaccurate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete what horrible PROMO/fancruft. Abuse of WP as a proxy for the award website; not what we do here per... everything in WP:NOT. Argh. Just argh. Jytdog (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively (e.g. without the tables) to filk music - I'm just not seeing where this passes WP:GNG (or WP:NOPAGE). Unless I'm missing something, none of the sources provided thus far are in depth coverage of the awards themselves; they're coverage of filk music/culture, and mention this subject as part of that one (e.g. "and by the way it even has its own award!"). Not that it matters so much for notability purposes, but it looks like this is also an internet poll rather than determined by e.g. jury, critics, or even members of a particular organization (like the Hugo Awards, which it contrasts itself to on the website, being clear that absolutely anybody can vote to determine the winners). It looks like it has received enough of those sorts of mentions to merit inclusion in the main article, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but selectively merge per Rhododendrites - I'm not seeing WP:GNG either, there's basically two articles that even count but they only mention the awards in passing. This is an article that relies heavily on primary or non-independent sourcing, and I just don't see significant coverage in my search. (Think delete is a more accurate description than merge.) SportingFlyer talk 02:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too niche and not of encyclopedic interest. Always worth looking at the contribution history of keep editors Lyndaship (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reasons given for deletion are (at best) inaccurate. Filk is hardly an "obscure microgenre"; it has been a noted SF convention activity for decades, and in particular is always a major track at every WorldCon. The Pegasus Awards are one of the two most significant award sets in the genre, and are voted on by an international collection of SF fans. Nominations and voting aren't restricted to OVFF members, so the Pegasus Awards are fairly representative of the opinions of filkers worldwide, even if they aren't able to get to OVFF. BunsenH (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - maybe I've missed this, but do we know how many people are typically voting for these awards? If it's ten, then I'd vote to delete. If it's 10,000, I'd probably vote keep. If it's a substantial number, it should be published somewhere. Deb (talk) 10:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a search and it doesn't look like they post voting results, which is fair. That being said, how many people are voting isn't a notability indicator per WP:GNG - and the fact there's not a lot of in depth coverage suggests it's not a large amount. SportingFlyer talk 20:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I checked with one of the people doing the count every year - voter base is between 300 and 400 people. (Sorry, I know you said to put new comments below the notice, but since this was supposed to be a direct answer, I put it here.) I would also vote keep but am not sure any of our voices are even heard no matter what we say since the persons initiating this delete campain clearly feel that this is an unimportant waste of wiki space. Very sad. I am from Germany, and the Pegasus Awards were known even back in 1989 when I started filking. These days, the award has an international voting base thanks to the Internets. Back then, I would have agreed that it was very Ohio/Midwest centric, but not anymore. Katyhh-D (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd close this as NC except that practically all of the Keep comments (bar SoV and BmK) are from accounts with practically zero edits. This looks non-notable to me, but I'm clearly not going to close it on that basis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt and indef all the keeppuppets. Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 06:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not supported by reliable references FOARP (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I object to this characterization of the "Keep" voters. I, Randwolf, Bgoldnyxnet, Mneme, BunsenH, and slatersteven all have lengthy histories of contribution to Wikipedia. JGarthson may be a SPA, but I don't see any others.--Jtle515 (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - top award for a whole genre of music. It was originally List of Pegasus Award winners which explains the tables and is probably a better title. Jonathunder (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's typically the case that because a genre is notable, any award that is the "top award" for that genre inherits notability? We need some evidence of WP:ORG... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Columbus Dispatch article is significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. So is the University of Tulsa paper. There are your multiple qualifying sources per WP:ORG. --Jtle515 (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble opening the second on my device, but this is not significant coverage. The only coverage of this subject in that source is two lines saying "such and such won". This is an article about filking and the festival, and spends almost no text talking about the awards. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The law journal article is also not independent, as the note on the main page says the author is a member of the community with "several published songs to her credit." SportingFlyer talk 04:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites: are we discussing the notability of the award only, or of the award and festival as a unit? If of the award only, the WP:ORG standards do not apply, as the award is not a "company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service"—only the festival is that. If for the award and festival as a unit, the article is relevant. SportingFlyer: you neglect to mention that two of the three authors on the paper are independent. The fact that one author is associated with the community doesn't change that. --Jtle515 (talk) 06:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtle515: I don't know how a paper whose primary author has a close association with the community can possibly be independent, but I'm happy to review other sources which show notability. SportingFlyer talk 07:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're not discussing "the community"! How can you cast such a broad net ("the entire filk community in general") when looking for conflicts of interest, yet be so narrowly focused ("the award only") when looking for relevance? This is quite simply a double standard. If a close link to the Pegasus Award specifically is required for an article to be considered relevant, fair play requires that a close link to the Pegasus Award specifically be required for an author to be dismissed as non-independent. --Jtle515 (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy, & the Law paper has far bigger problems than independence. This is a 8 year old, solicited paper, with 1 citations ("Google Scholar"., "Microsoft Academic".) that has not been vetted by the legal community at large and is not considered reliable. This paper fails the criteria per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. CBS527^Talk 11:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it is a respected publication of American University. According to their website, other institutions have ranked it as "the most cited legal periodical in the United States in the topical area of gender, social policy and the law" and "one of the top subject-specific law reviews." --Jtle515 (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it's the paper that is unreliable for a source per our guidelines. One of the main ways we evaluate if an academic paper is reliable is how the academic community views its value. Citation indexes will tell if a paper is part of mainstream academic discourse or not. The fact that it was a solicited paper doesn't help either. CBS527^Talk 20:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOLARSHIP does not say anything about solicited papers. Nor does it say anything about how lengthy a paper's citation index must be for it to be considered reliable, just that we should check that it has one. (Any paper on such an esoteric topic could be as reliable as the day is long and still get very few citations, merely because of how unusual the topic is.) It looks rather like you are presenting your personal standards for a paper's reliability as if they were Wikipedia's standards. --Jtle515 (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated a case why this paper is not a reliable source for establishing notability several times. I'm sure the closer will give proper weight to the reasoning. CBS527^Talk 12:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Whether or not an article is included in the encyclopedia is based on our policies and guidelines. This article seems to fail the notability criteria for a stand alone article at WP:N including WP:GNG. Both WP:N and WP:GNG require multiple sources with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I have been unable to find any sources in the article or G-searches that meet all 3 of the requirements to establish notability.

Current article sources:

The Decatur Daily & Sing Out! - One line mention of Pegasus Award
Columbus Dispatch - 2 brief mentions
Women in Science Fiction and Fantasy: Volume 1 - Brief 4 line paragraph on page 157 (not 156) in a 350+ page volume.
File770 - MikeGlyer's self published "fanzine"/blog
Pegasus Awards site - not independent
"Does Gender Influence Attitudes Toward Copyright in the Filk Community? " Primary research paper concerning intellectual properties. The paper does use the Pegasus Awards as one of 3 sources for filk songs (page 240) although not the primary one (page 244). Not a reliable source per WP:RS.

Kudos to Sarek for providing additional sources some of which have been recently added to the article. Unfortunately I have to respectfully disagree that they establish notability for this article.

Encyclopedia of Science Fiction- One mention referenced to OVFF site
Austin Chronicle - one mention. Questionable reliability for a news source that describes itself as "Bold and uncensored"
io9 is pretty much a blog of Gizmodo Media Group. The article discusses one section of a research paper, Does Gender Influence Attitudes Toward Copyright in the Filk Community? by Robert Spoo and Melissa Tatum. (also see above)

IMHO there is a good argument for WP:NOT as well. CBS527^Talk 12:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I still think WP:ORG is being seriously misapplied here. However, I am willing to stop arguing the point if we can agree to merge the article's content—sans lengthy tables, presumably—into Filk music. Hopefully we can agree on this as WP:ORG only applies to separate articles. --Jtle515 (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively (e.g. without the tables) to filk music as suggested above. WP:NOTE seems only supported by two sources. One is local newspaper coverage. The other is a journal but it's significant coverage of Filk, not significant coverage of the Pegasus Awards or the Ohio Valley Filk Festival. I do not see evidence that this topic meets WP:N, though it deserves to be included in the article about filk music. Levivich (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, other than the tables, most of the information in this article is already included in the Filk article. The "Awards" section is, verbatim, in the Filk Music article. In the "Ohio Valley Filk Fest" section, the first paragraph is already covered. What is left is 4 sentence that could be condensed into 1 or 2 sentences to avoid a possible proportion issue and added separately to the Filk article. There really isn't much that merge would accomplish. CBS527^Talk 20:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that most of the information in the article will end up in Filk music (whether or not it was there already), merge best describes the outcome. Also, making it a redirect preserves the page's history, so that if more sources come up, future editors will find it easier to tell if the subject has "become notable". --Jtle515 (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nomination reeks of IDONTLIKEIT; and WP:ORG is irrelevant here. This is a locally presented award but known to and respected by a global audience. In filk circles, a Pegasus is a sign of deep respect. (And I defy anybody to call me a keeppuppet!) --Orange Mike | Talk 07:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -This is one of the hearts of a community. People will be looking to Wiki for this info. You lessen yourselves by removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godel Fishbreath (talk • contribs) 20:08, 19 November 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.