Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 2

A person
A person
	An image of a person

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 November	3 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 15:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Somalal Shah[edit]

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

No Notability at all. Article seems to be made for promotional purpose. Swim45 (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Timtrent The current article doesn't actually say why the subject is notable. Please expand it to explain that and it may have a chance of not being deleted.Accesscrawl (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am on the third page of Google books results, and am still finding sources which range from mentions to more in-depth coverage. Meets GNG easily.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The painter is a recipient of Ranjitram Suvarna Chandrak which is considered as the highest literary and cultural award of Gujarat state. I found large number of reliable sources mentioning him in several Google Books. I have added few references. The article needs more references but subject is clearly notable.-Nizil (talk) 06:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Need to expand. -Gazal world (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of this article is a notable Indian painter. There is extensive coverage of his work in reliable books, journals, and newspapers. Article needs improvement, but that is not justification for deletion. Netherzone (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolutely not a promotion.JPL549 (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and can be expanded based on the Esther David piece.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:31, 5 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 ^^^ 16:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandita Dhariyal[edit]

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

She is low-profile individual and an example of WP:BLP1E. Fails WP:GNG because she has not garnered sustained coverage Swim45 (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes WP:NATHLETE because she has participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level. She participated in 2009 World Aquatics Championships as well as in the 2009 Asian Indoor Games. She also won the silver in 100 metre butterfly swimming at the 2010 South Asian Games. Note: AFD is nominated by a new editor in his first edit.-Nizil (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NATHLETE, has participated in 3 major international competitions. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. Sources mentioned in RS are reliable. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator here is a new account that created has created three AFDs without proper research, and not much else.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question What exactly is her notability based on? Is it because she competed at the 2009 World Aquatics Championships? There were 2556 competitors at this version of the annual event, so is every competitor at each of these annual events automatically notable? As a reference point--that's about the same number of competitors as the 2010 Winter Olympics, which encompasses a larger number of sports. I ask because her best finish was 51st (out of 57) which wouldn't be considered notable in fields like karate, taekwondo, boxing, kickboxing, etc.--where top 10 rankings are generally required. Being the first woman from her state to swim the English Channel doesn't seem to be as significant as being the youngest Australian male to make the swim, but Dan Canta's article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Canta. I also don't think a passing mention for finishing second in an article about records falling at the pool in the South Asian games or for swimming the channel is enough to meet WP:GNG as it seems like routine sports reporting and WP:NOTNEWS. Everyone else has indicated that notability was obvious, so I'm just trying to understand what I'm missing. Thank you. Papaursa (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am new to trying to use the Wikipedia notability guidelines to assess AfD. However, it seems that, as there isn't a specific guide for swimmers, the WP:NATH guidelines for athletics are considered, which says that athletes are "presumed notable if they meet any of the criteria below" - 5, "Finished top 3 in any other major senior level international competition (this includes prestigious small field meets, e.g. IAAF Diamond League/IAAF Golden League meets, less prestigious large scale meets, e.g. Asian Games, and any IAAF Gold Label Road Race that is not explicitly mentioned above)". I was assuming that the South Asian Games (in which she won a silver medal) would count. If that is so, it doesn't matter what media coverage there was, because it says "presumed notable" - notability doesn't have to be proved through sustained coverage. That's my understanding, anyway. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dhariyal's participation as noted in RS is plenty adequate to show notability as ameatur athelete. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 23:11, 5 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Holladay[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE. Source searches are not providing multiple instances of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, only name checks, quotations (which are primary in nature) and faint passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing special here, just an individual doing his job with a few minor mentions in the press. GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:CREATIVE and above, he is a jobbing artist but not notable enough to have a page on WP (yet anyway). Dom from Paris (talk) 16:33, 9 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. The "keep" opinions do not address the nominator's reasons for deletion, or in the case of AlessandroTiandelli333's opinion, have been convincingly rebutted. Sandstein 14:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of shortest-lived sovereign states[edit]

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

This page should be deleted because:

1) This page lacks notability. Specifically there is a lack of reliable sources indicating that the topic of "shortest-lived sovereign states" is notable, instead the only sources that can be found listing "shortest lived states" are blogs or similar non-reliable sources for this topic (e.g., HowStuffWorks.com). See WP:LISTN.

2) This page is the product of original research. There are no reliably-sourced list inclusion criteria (see WP:LISTCRITERIA), nor can any be produced because of the lack of notability of this subject, instead the editors have decided their own criteria. Few references are cited, none of which are both reliable sources for the subject under discussion (e.g., TASS is not an RS for Russia's annexation of the Crimea) AND state the length of existence of the state quoted in the article. Looking at the list, it appears that in most (all?) cases the editor has selected a date of creation, and a date of dissolution, and then measured the time between these points, without a reliable source indicating that these were the correct dates and this was the correct length of existence of the state. As a case-in-point, the Belarusian Democratic Republic is included in the list, but this still exists as a government in exile - so on what basis has it been included? In many cases it is doubtful whether a sovereign state really was created (e.g., brief rebellions, puppet states, states created purely for the purpose of annexation, states declared but with no evidence that the declaration was acted on).

3) The information on this page is not verifiable, since it is not supported by reliable sources. See WP:V FOARP (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. At this point, I agree with the nominator, but the material is fascinating and I know that some of the information is essentially correct. Surely editors who have a better knowledge than I of where to look for sources could find some reliable sources. I hope this nomination will lead to more work being done on the article. Bduke (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is full of original research, and uncited for most of that. I brought this up on the article's talk page a few weeks ago, and there has been no reply or effort to resolve the issue. I also find it problematic as it doesn't define what criteria are used for "widely recognized" and "limited recognition" in the article, nor do I understand the point of including states that apparently have "o recognition." Kaiser matias (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with Bduke. The nomination makes sense, but I like having a list of the shortest-existing countries. As long as more reliable sources are found, the list could be saved and revamped. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Am I right in saying that if reliable sources cannot be found then you support deletion? It has had a header saying that reliable sources were needed since 2014. I have looked for reliable sources and found only blogs and other non-reliable sources, so have others. And remember, reliable sources are need not just for individual items in the list, but also to demonstrate the notability of the list, and to support its inclusion criteria. FOARP (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A long list with almost no sources, means that the information is unverified. Dimadick (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I get the WP:INTERESTING votes, but I find it interesting only insofar as it is accurate, and in the absence of reliable sources per WP:GNG, we have no reason to assume that it is accurate.

The article has over a hundred entries and only five references. Only four entries are sourced in any way, and none is sourced according to policy requirements. Even if we accept that they are all states and all existed for the periods given (given that the article makes no attempt to define what a "state" is or how to determine the start and end dates), there's nothing to say that these are the shortest-lived sovereign states in history. This would require some sources that actually discuss the concept of short-lived sovereign states - realistically, independent external lists. No such sources are available. Kahastok talk 13:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with Morriswa (Charlotte Allison).Mccapra (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same question to you: what if reliable sources can't be found? Do you support deletion in that case? FOARP (talk) 09:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] If this is deleted then I will keep it on my own page because I think it is a good addition to Wikipedia. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All six of those references are blogs and/or not RS for this subject and/or not about this subject but about a specific short-lived state or defunct states in general. This is exactly the problem highlighted in the reasons for deletion. Taking them in turn:

1) TheTravel.com is not an RS for history, the article you linked to is not about short-lived states.

2) The History.com article is from their blog and thus not an RS, and not about shortest-lived states in general (e.g., one lasted 14 years) but republics within the United States which may or may not have actually been independent/'sovereign'. Even if it were thought to be an RS and relevant, it takes more than this one list to substantiate notability and support inclusion criteria as the concept of short-lived states is not discussed at all, instead "significant coverage" is required. Particularly, some definition of what a "shortest lived sovereign state" is, how its length of existence is defined etc. is needed and none is provided.

3) The Conde Nast article is not about shortest-lived states, it's about Somaliand and describes it as existing for five days or fifty years depending on who you ask.

4) The Boingboing article is about Transnistria. Not relevant to the subject under discussion at all.

5) BigThink.com is a blog and thus not an RS, and the article is not about the subject under discussion, but about a specific state.

6) The AVA article is, again, not about the subject of shortest-lived sovereign states, but about a specific state. FOARP (talk) 10:07, 8 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Blair Witch Mountain Project[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I won't buy the argument that since many of the cast are notable enough for articles this filmette is notable; not only WP:NOTINHERITED but also those I looked at seemed to have very slender claims to notability. The Andrew Hurst who describes it as 'cute' is not a notable critic, merely some opinionated wannabe ( sorry, design-savvy content strategist and digital consultant) with a blog, & while I can find out enough about Hal C. F. Astel online to make me believe that he probably does exist I can't find anything to suggest that his opinion matters.TheLongTone (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I cannot find any reliable sources covering this in a significant manner to warrant notability and have a Wikipedia article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is as notable as The Bogus Witch Project in terms of both sources and notability. I'll work on the article's quality, bring it more up to shape, I promise you that. This article's barely existed a day. MacCready (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing The Bogus Witch Project, it has actual Google Books results where this film does not, so there is no equivalence to be drawn. Even with that being the case, The Bogus Witch Project may not be notable enough for a standalone article but could be mentioned at The Blair Witch Project. I'm very hard-pressed to find that to be the case for The Blair Witch Mountain Project. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...this argument is , of course, invalid; see WP:OTHERSTUFF.TheLongTone (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm finding little mentions here and there - so far not enough to really justify inclusion, however enough to where it would merit a mention at Blair_Witch#Mockumentaries and the main page for Escape to Witch Mountain. (There's already a mention at the page for EtWM.) See mentions here, here, and here. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although if pressed to say where this should redirect to, I'd say to the director's page since there is a little about this in his article. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 17:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the director article where the cast and crew could be covered in a collapsed section, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This needs to be improved but if you look through the American films category it would be selective enforcement. --JAMillerKC (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find nothing on this topic, a Proquest news archive search came up absolutley empte. Not a mention in books, scholarly sources - zip, zero, nada.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:57, 11 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. NA1000's analysis of the sources is very clearly useful here. Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wilford W. Andersen[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:BASIC. Per source searches, I found this article, which provides significant coverage, is independent and reliable, but not finding anything else in terms of said necessary coverage. Searches are only providing name checks and fleeting passing mentions. Furthermore, all nine sources in the article are primary sources, which are not usable to qualify notability, and no Wikipedia guidelines provide presumed notability for religious subjects. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the 1st AfD was a mass nomination that closed sans consensus. The 2nd nomination (2014) was a unanimous "Keep". And also Note that while sources on the page are not independent, ~~they~~ there are reliable (correction: there are reliable sources extant, (LDS church holds an ownership interest in Deseret News.) But WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, and independent sources do exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @E.M.Gregory: The sources when nominated for deletion (link) are from Church News, which is "a weekly tabloid-sized supplement to the Deseret News and the MormonTimes, a Salt Lake City, Utah newspaper owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)" (underline emphasis mine). This is a primary source that is wholly owned by the LDS Church, and is not independent. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deseret is editorially independent, and it's a complex ownership structure. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the point is that sources exist to establish notability, even though the article was woefully sourced when you found it. Maybe we need some edit-a-thons in the mountain states, and in "red" territory (like church multipurpose rooms), not just in "blue" spaces.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your reply above, "Deseret is editorially independent, and it's a complex ownership structure", I'm not sure I follow you entirely. The sources in the article at the time of nomination were written and published by Church News, not Deseret News. Church News is not editorially independent, it's literally owned by the church. See also the publication's "About us" page, which states, "The LDS Church News is an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Jointly published by the Deseret News and the LDS Church, its content supports the doctrines, principles and practices of the Church." Deseret News uses Church News as a supplement, but Deseret News does not actually or literally write it, it essentially only distributes it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is INDEPTH in Deseret News (not independent, but reliable on facts), which uses his middle initial. Much more coverage in Arizona papers form the 90s and early 2000s, available in news archive searches without middle initial. Accusations of racism within LDS in Arizona was an issue that got wide coverage, and he was LDS spokesman, then he was the LDS leader who was speaking to the press. There really does seem to have been justification for KEEPing this at the 2004 AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Per my comment above, are you mistakenly referring to Church News, a primary source wholly owned by the LDS Church, as Deseret News? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. I ran an Proquest News archive search. Using his middle initial, ~40 Deseret articles came up, spanning many years, some INDEPTH, others mere mentions. My point is that Deseret News is a reliable source from which an article about a LDS leader can be sourced, even though there needs to be WP:SIGCOV in in independent WP:RS to support notability. Such coverage does exist. To me, this looks like our familiar type: an article about a notable person that needs an editor with the time and interest to properly expand and source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Perhaps you could post some of the article titles you found in ProQuest, then I and others could have a means of searching for them by title and publisher to assess them. Links would be fine too, although they won't work for non-ProQuest users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the first ones that come up in a PROQUEST , excluding new Temple cornerstone layings,

MORMONS DISPUTE FAVORITISM IN GILBERT, Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]14 Apr 2000: A.1. photo of Andersen.
Church pushes for name change `Mormon' was once an insult; today, it just doesn't convey the church's beliefs: [Fourth Edition]. Ettenborough, Kelly. Seattle Times; Seattle, Wash. [Seattle, Wash]24 Mar 2001: C8.
CITY COMMITTEE TAKING YEAR TO LOOK 25 YEARS DOWN ROAD, Beard, Betty. Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]26 Sep 2000: 1. (member of a civic committee; non church-related civic participation)
TEACHERS REJECT BOARD'S SALARY OFFER: [Final Edition] From GAZETTE staff; wire reports.. Phoenix Gazette; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]20 Apr 1994: B2. (he wasa Chair of the school board)
Same-sex ban under protest during Mormon festivities, Greene, Katherine. Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]29 Nov 2008: B.2. "The biggest donors to the Yes 4 Marriage campaign in Arizona, before the primaries, were Nancy and David LeSueur and Kathleen and Wilford Andersen, two prominent Mormon families in Mesa."
Faith groups backing Prop. 102; Pitzl, Mary Jo. Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]03 Oct 2008: B.1. "Wilford Andersen, a former church spokesman, contributed $100,000 along with his wife. He did not return a phone call seeking comment."
A MATTER OF FAITH EXCLUSION OF MORMONS FROM EVENT ILL-CONCEIVED; Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]01 Feb 2000: 4. (a major Christian ecumenical "Festival of Faite" to which Mormons were not invited.) "In his understated style, Wilford Andersen, chief spokesman for the Mormon church in Arizona, sounded a sympathetic chord:'They kind of have to walk a fine line in the Ecumenical Council so they don't lose the evangelical groups that take such hard positions against us.'"
Inside a sacred house; Ferrier, Pat. Fort Collins Coloradoan; Fort Collins, Colo. [Fort Collins, Colo]24 Aug 2016: W.1. "Elder Wilford Andersen, who oversees 153 temples worldwide, said..."
Keep Gregory has clearly demonstrated enough sourcing to show notability. Beyond this, I have to express frustration at the misuse of terms in these deltion discussions. The Church News is not a primary source. Published works that are not created by the subject are never primary sources. Weather they meet the 3rd party reliable secondary source requriements is debatable, but they are not primary sources. Way more than enough sources have been identified above.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The quotations for the sources above are passing mentions (e.g. "Wilford Andersen, a former church spokesman, contributed $100,000 along with his wife. He did not return a phone call seeking comment."), which is not WP:SIGCOV, or quotations (e.g. "Elder Wilford Andersen, who oversees 153 temples worldwide, said..."), which are primary in nature, unless more content about the subject is actually available in them. Church News remains a primary source; it is literally owned by the LDS church. See also: WP:SPIP, where it states in part:

“

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

”

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage of his activities over many years, there is, unsurprisingly, much more than the articles I listed above as examples. to take just one, The Arizona Republic, the newspaper of record in one of America's larger states, reported his role in opposing gay marriage. Two separate sotries mention his large donation. The fact that he and his wife gave $100,000 to the "anti" campaign in WP:SIGCOV, even if it is brief, and even if he was smart enough not to comment. I do not support keeping most of the many articles Northamerica1000 has recently brought to AfD on individuals who have held prominent positions within LDS. I run searches and support keeping only those whose activities have gotten WP:SIGCOV. Like this one. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the two-sentence mention ""Wilford Andersen, a former church spokesman, contributed $100,000 along with his wife. He did not return a phone call seeking comment." is just not significant coverage whatsoever. See WP:GNG, where it is stated that significant coverage is defined (in part) as "more than a trivial mention". This example coverage is the definition of a trivial mention. Ironically, part of this coverage consists of the person not saying or doing anything; not returning a phone call! Really? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below is an analysis of sources presented in this discussion, based upon how they have been described above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Analysis
MORMONS DISPUTE FAVORITISM IN GILBERT, Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]14 Apr 2000: A.1. photo of Andersen.	Not WP:SIGCOV: A photo of the subject. Is that all that's there?
Church pushes for name change `Mormon' was once an insult; today, it just doesn't convey the church's beliefs: [Fourth Edition]. Ettenborough, Kelly. Seattle Times; Seattle, Wash. [Seattle, Wash]24 Mar 2001: C8.	(?) Cannot find source to assess it, after various searches. Comes across as being about the push for a name change, rather than being about providing significant biographical coverage about the subject himself.
CITY COMMITTEE TAKING YEAR TO LOOK 25 YEARS DOWN ROAD, Beard, Betty. Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]26 Sep 2000: 1. (member of a civic committee; non church-related civic participation)	(?) What does this article actually state about Andersen? Does this provide significant biographical coverage about the subject, or is it just about a city committee's activities, perhaps only mentioning or quoting the subject?
TEACHERS REJECT BOARD'S SALARY OFFER: [Final Edition] From GAZETTE staff; wire reports.. Phoenix Gazette; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]20 Apr 1994: B2. (he wasa Chair of the school board)	(?) What does this article actually state about Andersen? He was part of a board whose proposition was rejected. Comes across as being about the rejection, rather than being about providing significant biographical coverage about the subject.
Same-sex ban under protest during Mormon festivities, Greene, Katherine. Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]29 Nov 2008: B.2. "The biggest donors to the Yes 4 Marriage campaign in Arizona, before the primaries, were Nancy and David LeSueur and Kathleen and Wilford Andersen, two prominent Mormon families in Mesa."	Not WP:SIGCOV: passing mention stating the subject's name and that he donated some of his money
Faith groups backing Prop. 102; Pitzl, Mary Jo. Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]03 Oct 2008: B.1. "Wilford Andersen, a former church spokesman, contributed $100,000 along with his wife. He did not return a phone call seeking comment."	Not WP:SIGCOV whatsoever. Two sentences, one of which consists of the subject doing or saying nothing.
A MATTER OF FAITH EXCLUSION OF MORMONS FROM EVENT ILL-CONCEIVED; Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]01 Feb 2000: 4. (a major Christian ecumenical "Festival of Faite" to which Mormons were not invited.) "In his understated style, Wilford Andersen, chief spokesman for the Mormon church in Arizona, sounded a sympathetic chord:'They kind of have to walk a fine line in the Ecumenical Council so they don't lose the evangelical groups that take such hard positions against us.'"	Primary source: quotations from a subject, without any further information, are considered to be primary on English Wikipedia
Inside a sacred house; Ferrier, Pat. Fort Collins Coloradoan; Fort Collins, Colo. [Fort Collins, Colo]24 Aug 2016: W.1. "Elder Wilford Andersen, who oversees 153 temples worldwide, said..."	Primary source: quotations from a subject, without any further information, are considered to be primary on English Wikipedia

Comment – If we are going to start considering the faintest of mentions in multiple (at least two) reliable sources as significant coverage (it's not), then below is an example of what would qualify notability for an article on English Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This person donated money to a cause.^[2] He did not return a phone call seeking comment.^[2]

Notes[edit]

^ Reference #1 – A single image of a person in a publication
^ ^a ^b Reference #2 – Passing mention

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources in the article are either not independent (Church News) or not significant coverage. The additional coverage presented above is trivial and routine, and trivial mentions and quotes do not add up to significant coverage, even if a sufficiently dedicated editor can turn them into sentences. Still no significant coverage of the article's subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources, so subject does not pass WP:GNG. Bakazaka (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am in agreement with User:Northamerica1000, I fail to see any truly independent sources nor do I feel this article passes under current WP:GNG guidelines. Wilford W. Andersen hasn't done anything standout that leads me to believe he even deserves to be have a wikipedia article. Govvy (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BASIC per the excellent analysis of the sources by NA1000. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:40, 9 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. Sandstein 14:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orders of magnitude (probability)[edit]

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

A bizarre article (and a few of the sourced ines are unreliable) that fails WP:LISTN and is comprised of noble-synthesis of random data from a multitude of sources, irrelevant to one another. ∯WBG^converse 08:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is part of a set – see the following navigational template. It doesn't make sense to consider this in isolation when other members of the set have been extensively discussed and kept previously. For example, see RfC, AfD. Andrew D. (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The concept of this list is questionable, as probabilities aren't measured with SI units. Relevant information in the list is already included in the Standard deviation and gambling-related articles. — Newslinger talk 10:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think the idea of comparing different probabilities is an important one, and one we are notoriously bad at. There are some quite common comparisons of probabilities, say chance of accident while flying vrs crossing the road. For example [7] compares chances of dying by different methods. Here is another infographic of different probabilities. [8] with a an equally random selection of items. The random nature of these items is actually helpful as we can compare things we have some intuition about with other things where our intuition is lacking. --Salix alba (talk): 17:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly sources, please. We hardly write entire articles on the basis that random science-blogs took an appreciation for comparing the values of different probabilities (people's amusement with numbers is quite a common thing).
And, even if we keep it, the article title need to be changed.
And, I have a fair guess that anything resemblant of the amauterish mathematics, pursued in the blogs would turn the article into a nightmare where anything and everything, every value of probability that has been calculated across the world, for innumerable cases and purposes, can be included and documented.Xoreaster wishes to bring in the poker-stuff, I can wish to bring in the several probability values of various parameters, as projected by our national economy reports.This's just endless.∯WBG^converse 20:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "wish to bring in the poker stuff"; it's already there. My point was that those items were currently unsourced, but easily sourceable. XOR'easter (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article title is pretty terrible; the parenthetical disambiguation doesn't really make sense. Is "Orders of magnitude of probabilities" better? --JBL (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or, "probabilities by order of magnitude"? XOR'easter (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's better than mine, for sure :). --JBL (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joel B. Lewis, what's about my other points?∯WBG^converse 09:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WBG, as I said in my comment below, when I saw this AfD pop up I expected to vote "delete", but I found Salix alba's comment compelling. I don't see any particular reason that only academic sources should be required (that is certainly not a rule generally on WP), just good-quality sources that deal with the general concept of orders of magnitude of probabilities. In particular, I think this also handles your last objection: the sourcing should have to relate actually to the subject of the article (orders of magnitudes of probabilities), not just probability in general. Of course an article like this will attract cruft that will need to be cleaned out from time to time -- but the same is true of almost every list article (and it is one reason I am a list skeptic). But I think in this case it is easy to see what the standard for inclusion should be. --JBL (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To my surprise, keep. I am a skeptic of list articles generally, and this one has some pretty ridiculous entries and should be cleaned up, but I think Salix alba's comment is pretty compelling. It's certainly true that one can find sourcing on the general topic of comparing probabilities of rare events. --JBL (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with JBL here: I think this one is a keep, and I'm a bit surprised by that. The sourcing needs improvement, I expect that references for the unreferenced can be turned up without too much difficulty: for example, poker probability is a whole thing, and those numbers check out. Some items may need additional caveats, but the fundamental premise is sound. XOR'easter (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has useful information, and the majority of it is referenced. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Admittedly mostly because I really like it (and, at the same time, see no actual violations of list guidelines). Sourcing needs a major overhaul, and unsourced entries should simply be removed or replaced with the trivial transliteration. But overall this is highly informative - kind of like a reverse phone book search for likelihood. Seems worth keeping and improving. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is rather well-referenced, even if it needs an overhaul. Leo1pard (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well referenced, at least in current form. Is a reasonable topic for an article. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:45, 10 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 09:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Juweinat Omar[edit]

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

There isn't significant independent coverage in reliable sources. The numerous references are mostly to cases which just refer to the subject in his role as defence counsel. I'm not able to find any references substantially about the subject. I don't think one paragraph in the Charles Waterstreet piece in the Sydney Morning Herald is enough. Boneymau (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Dishonest spam, so may cases of the supplied references not even coming close to supporting the claims made. References dumped in seemingly randomly to make the subject seem more significant. Typical of PR articles from undeclared paid editors. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedy even. Blatant promo with very misrepresentative to possibly fallacious references. I have seen better written hoax and april fool material. Aoziwe (talk) 12:27, 4 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. The !keep votes are from accounts that are very unconvincing - indeed, I'll be off to SPI for one of them soon. Black Kite (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Winters[edit]

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

One minor news article, the rest are his sources for making money. Small number of followers. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. JamesG5 (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps we missed The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Huffingtonpost, and the incident with the pigs in school, or the 2nd annual march? Den... (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Den... Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It meets notability criteria for a notable person and is founder of a notable grassroots animal rights organization, with worldwide activists. Also, large amount of YouTube followers: 127,500. User:Steven02511 Signed —Preceding undated comment added 03:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC) Steven02511 (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are zero reliable sources in the article. As far as I can see, there are only two RSs out there that could be used, The Guardian and HuffPost. But I don't think those two are sufficient. Maybe if Winters were the main subject of each, but alas, he is not. We have to follow WP:GNG here. HelloMultiverse (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC) — HelloMultiverse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep as long as the Daily Telegraph, Guardian, Huffingtonpost, Evening Standard, Sun, and Metro sources listed below by Den... are included. HelloMultiverse (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC) — HelloMultiverse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
probably delete, appears to be WP:PROMO for a non-notable activist. Org he founded, Surge activism, may not be notable either.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO. The sources listed above merely mention him or briefly interview him. They do not cover him significantly. The sources on the page don't either, they're links to help him make money as the nominator pointed out - one is to his freaking Patreon account, which is a clear showing WP:PROMO has been violated. Also, you don't pass WP:N through the number of Youtube subscribers you have... SportingFlyer talk 06:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think that if this article would have been written as a promotional piece it would have included details that are also included in his personal page or in his twitter account. It would also make him look as the Rockstar of the activist world. But it does not. It is succinct, outdated and it lacks lots of data that is relevant.

When dealing with current topics, Wikipedia requires notability verified through reliable sources, and this article fits here perfectly, namely, to inform readers of a person who has a notable coverage. Mr. Winters’ profile, whom I was totally unfamiliar with prior to arriving to this AfD, has superseded the animal protection and vegan activism by appearing, not only in two news events in major international papers, but in many more. I also find little strength in the argument that these news are hardly related to Mr. Winters when he is at the center of the events reported and often the only name mentioned.

Here are the ones I found together with the ones mentioned above (for perspective). All of these sources fit within what internal discussion in WP has already identified as reliable sources (see here and here).

The Daily Telegraph: here, here, and here.

The Guardian: here.

The Huffingtonpost: here.

Evening Standard: here, here and here (see here for a discussion about this source as reliable).

Montreal Times: here.

~~In scholarly circles, at least: one here.~~ (as per E.M.Gregory below)

This list is not counting the myriads of references to lesser reliable sources like the Sun, Metro, or business news, and publications dealing with animal rights or vegan activism. There is something fishy when a brand-new account plunges into AfD debates saying, “Zero reliable sources.” Obviously, this is a statement that cannot be supported by evidence now. Den... (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion doesn't need to make someone "look like a rockstar." The fact there are links to his specific projects Also, none of those sources listed cover him significantly per WP:SIGCOV - they all just mention him. SportingFlyer talk 22:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I looked at the alleged "scholarly" source above, it is a mere speakers listing of Winters as one of scores of speakers at a conference on animal rights. NOT scholarly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO for a YouTube activist. Hits in my searches in searches are overwhelmingly to a non-notable animal rights activist website [9] to which Winters contributes. Hits in RS media are mere mentions of his participation in protests and politically-motivated acts of vandalism. Fails WP:ANYBIO, fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that article creator Steven02511 had created 9 pages, 3 of which have been deleted, 1 is currently at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surge activism, and, with one exception, the others have been tagged for notability (Confessions of a Sociopath, Lethal Eviction, Anonymous for the voiceless.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @E.M.Gregory: perhaps you could agree that editors with an idiosyncratic track record may also at times compose indispensable and conventional articles. Den... (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing record, and record is certainly, er... unusual. As are the editing records of User:Steven02511 and User:Morgan Ginsberg.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained in this other comment, in which I thanked you for pointing me to the error of WP:CITEKILL, I asked you to assume good faith from my part (WP:GF), not to plant doubts about my intentions in order to gain ground with your arguments. I have no stake here at all. I have presented my views and evidences, and wish you all well. Den... (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: I've participated in several AFDs recently. I have nothing to gain if this article stays article stays up nor will I be bothered if it gets deleted. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 08:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still appears to be a reasonably split consensus, primarily on whether the sources provided are sufficient
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Revisiting. Articles in the list above are mere trivial mentions. non-blueliked publication Montreal Times: "Ed Winters (Earthling Ed), will be speaking about his activism." (at the not-major-event "Montreal Vegan Festival.) HuffPost quotes him as founder of the non-notable - and recently deleted - Surge activism. The Guardian does a little more, "Ed Winters, the co-director of Surge, which orchestrated anti-fur demonstrations that attracted more than 250 people in September, a rise from 120 the previous catwalk season and 25 in September 2016, said 'we expect those numbers to continually rise'". but getting 250 people to a demonstration DOES NOT notability confer. Daily Telegraph is similar: "'It seems strange that although the majority of British society is against the use of fur, it is still being given a platform at London fashion week,' said Ed Winters, co-director of Surge." Then there is the turkey thing: Vegan activists clash with police after hundreds of turkeys escape trailer "Ed Winters, also known as Earthling Ed, a vegan activist who was at the scene, told of how he was allowed to keep one turkey on his Facebook page." To me, this looks like WP:PROMO for a non-notable activist. Fails WP:BASIC; WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Steven02511 on article creator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Note this too: it was E.M.Gregory who accused me in that same case of sockpuppeting and confabulating to manipulate the vote in this AfD, implying I was an interested party, but there is no foundation (can't speak for the others). It was an accusation done in haste. Look for yourself at the interaction tools and notice the lack of relation. If you had access to my IP address, you would see I am on the other side of the Atlantic, on a smaller island, and have nothing to do with the subject at hand. However, that is not necessary. You only need to study my contributions and compare them with the others. English is not even my first language, which you should have noticed by now before raising a finger against me. I only wanted to find out about the AfD, learn something new, and amicably share my thoughts but then met your unwarranted denunciation. It does not feel welcoming anymore. Arbitrarily blaming those whom you disagree with of sockpuppeting may work as a weapon to clear the field of your opposites and deviate attention away from their arguments, but is still low. @E.M.Gregory:, I can't help but to wonder if you have an ax to grind here. If that is not the case, you have shown me an unfriendly way of debating in AfD. Den... (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:NOTPROMO. If not a paid article certainly the creator should read WP:ADVOCACY closely. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:47, 9 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. Michig (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many Uses of Computers[edit]

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

This is a WP:CFORK and nearly all the references are citing Wikipedia. This should be deleted or redirected to computer like the page uses of computer. Enwebb (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was a contested PROD (WP:SYNTH personal essay about Computers) by the original author. No need for a redirect.PRehse (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above assertion. LikeMeercats (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This reads like the essay of a young student in about 1985, on the newfangled but not-yet-encountered 'computer'. Not encyclopedic or useful. Cossaxx (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to redirect anywhere as it is not a likely search term. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.References are citing Wikipedia.Should be deleted at the earliest as it seems to be kiddish with the present generation .Vinodbasker (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to delete these references in a clean-up attempt but was quickly reverted by the original author. Would do so again but it looks like the article is on its way out.PRehse (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads more like an essay, I can't really see how this could ever be encyclopedic.FelixFLB (talk) 16:11, 6 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. Michig (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jiuxian railway station[edit]

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

No reference or links, not sure what the Chinese name is or where exactly in Guizhou it's located. Timmyshin (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete I can find no evidence of it and the location is very dubious – in Guizhou but at the Yunnan end of the line, if the ordering in the infobox is correct which is the only place it seems to appear. It does not appear on the routemap at Changsha–Kunming high-speed railway, and I can’t find it with an equivalent check on zh.wp.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
pinging ASDFGH who created the template that refers to the station, which has included the article from the start, in case they know something about it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is a useless one-line substub created by a blocked user, so it probably should be deleted. But FWIW, the station does exist and it's called 旧县站 in Chinese, see [10]. And it's in Yunnan, not Guizhou. (The creator couldn't even get a single sentence right). -Zanhe (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete I couldn't find enough resources that justify the subject's notability.JPL549 (talk) 10:10, 5 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. I'm threating the "redirect"s as "redirect once a suitable target article exists", because none has been proposed. Sandstein 14:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rental market of International students in Sydney[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG I'd redirect to housing market in Sydney if it existed, although I also fail to see why the housing market in Sydney is especially worthy of an article. There is possible a case for an article on the distortion of local housing markets due to the need for student accommodation. TheLongTone (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 18:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic seems overly specific (Student housing in Sydney or Accommodation for international students in Australia would be better), but a lot has been written on the (often poor and sometimes dangerous) standard of accommodation available to international students in Sydney, projects to build new accommodation and the impact of international students on the Sydney housing market. A simple Google search returns lots of useful results [11]. I'd prefer an upmerge, but I think the article is viable. Nick-D (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I am really in two minds about this one. The subject is certainly notable. There is no shortage of reliable secondary sources on the subject matter. However, the style and english expression are just all wrong, and with possble indications of WP:OR, it points to WP:TNT. Aoziwe (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - reads like a poorly-written student essay. There may be grounds for having such an article (per Aoziwe), but this isn't it. Deb (talk) 09:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 20:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could be improve instead of deleting.JPL549 (talk) 10:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agreed with Deb. The article lacks notability at the current moment. Catiline52 (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTESSAY the last paragraph is a dead giveaway "In conclusion, renting accommodation in Sydney is still a big challenge for international students". @Deb: @Catiline52: you seem to have forgotten to say where we should redirect it to. I don't see any real reason to redirect if there is not a page that mentions this particular problem. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so much forgotten as "don't know". Education in Sydney? I guess what I'm saying is that there is potential for an article at this title and thus potential for some of the content to be re-used at a later date, if someone comes along who has the ability to write it. Hence redirect is preferable to deletion (but deletion is preferable to retention). Deb (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY as well as having certain aspects of WP:SYNTH. Ajf773 (talk) 20:13, 9 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 T20 Global League. There is no consensus to delete the articles before redirecting; some editors want to retain history, only the nominator "prefers" to delete and redirect. There is no consensus on the amount of information to merge; this can be discussed on the talk page of the league if necessary, especially since the article histories won't be deleted. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 21:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jo'burg Giants[edit]

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

League was canceled so the these previous teams stand null and void. New teams are introduced and each one has article. This and other listed articles fail WP:CRIN. Störm (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Point of clarification, since the article I got here via (Stellenbosch Kings) didn't mention it. @Störm: The league never played a single match, so these teams effectively never played? —C.Fred (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred They never played any cricket match and were teams of planned tournament created pre-maturely by users. Since they never played so, they fails cricket guidelines. Thanks. Störm (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep history but redirect. No point in having an article about the team, per WP:CRIN. However, since they will be mentioned in the history of the league, they're reasonable search terms for the league, and I think it's worth leaving the history visible. —C.Fred (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer delete and redirect. Störm (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is there a source showing the league was cancelled for 2018? SportingFlyer talk 04:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[12] Störm (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's from last year. Is the league about to begin? Or has it been cancelled/postponed indefinitely? I think this would be outcome-determinative for this AfD. SportingFlyer talk 00:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: The league has been replaced by the Mzansi Super League. This article sort of explains that. But only sort of. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, merging any useful content. A lesson on jumping the gun. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can be redirect.JPL549 (talk) 10:44, 5 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. Michig (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heartless Records[edit]

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

Recreation of an article that was previously deleted, yet it still fails notability criteria. Appears to have been created by a an editor with a WP:COI (I suspect that Ericlrule is the Eric Lipscomb mentioned in the article). Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There does not appear to be any significant independent coverage in reliable sources. WP:CORP is not met. Deli nk (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTPROMOTION LikeMeercats (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy - Promotional, maybe even enough to incur G11. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:10, 6 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. Michig (talk) 09:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rosanna Miles[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO due to the person in question being notable only for one thing of minor notability. WP:BEFORE failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find some reviews - of her performances in the pantomimes Cinderella and Aladdin, and in not-well-known plays in towns in Suffolk. She may be best known in connection with Doctor Who (supporting roles in individual episodes and recording audio books) - but neither of those are notable roles in the Doctor Who world. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cursory internet search leads me to same conclusion as User:RebeccaGreen LikeMeercats (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing short of a comprehensive directory of actresses would justify this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any significant coverage especially in reliable sources. Sdmarathe (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no evidence that this individual meets GNG or NACTOR. Vanamonde (talk) 17:16, 5 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 Closed as Speedy Delete-G6. --Michael Greiner 01:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Fussell (disambiguation)[edit]

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

If there is only one notable Chris Fussell, the disambiguation page is unnecessary. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only other page in the disambig. is a redlink. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the other Chris Fussell is referred to in enough reliable sources that a page may eventually be created, but until that time this page is unnecessary. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above assessments. LikeMeercats (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:G6. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:45, 3 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Athens Rising: The Sicyon Project: Volume One[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM the project is in actual fact a moneymaking scheme to promote local bands. On the director's facebook page [[13]] he describes it as "Providing bands with an affordable way to capture and share their most valuable asset - the experience of their live performance." So we can deduce that the featured artists paid to be filmed and this page is most probably a WP:COI effort to promote his business. The flagpole articles look to be part of the promotional effort as are the other sources mostly blogs. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say to go through this process based on the standards. Don't post people's private Facebooks. I saw the film and made the article. I have no association with the director and was not consulted by anyone about it. It does not meet the standards as discussed in the Linqua Franqa article and this article can be deleted. I just feel very uneasy about people privately being slandered through this process with false accusations. If that's the standard on Wikipedia I don't want to be associated with it anymore.E6fanatics (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook is not private at all this is the information available for all to see without even having an account and is clearly information he wishes to communicate publicly. Slander is when a false statement is made with the intention of damaging somone's reputation. As you have confirmed the information comes from the director's own page and facebook can sometimes be used as a relibale source as per WP:FACEBOOK. Please note that suggesting that another editor is being slanderous can be taken as a WP:LEGAL THREAT and claiming I am making false accusations is very dodgy as I have specifically added the source for my comment which is not an accusation at all as there is nothing wrong with making promotional films. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, not slander, so I'll rephrase and retract. I would argue "...the project is in actual fact a moneymaking scheme to promote local bands.". I really don't like where that is headed. The film is about the arts. It was funded by the Athens Clarke County Economic Development Department, so it was a film made with an arts grant. He may film bands, but the film itself was not some sort of demo reel. Like I said, I don't like where it's headed and I'm at the point where I just want my articles gone because debating with admins has dragged others through the mud unintentionally. I just don't believe it is fair to the people I am writing about because I'm a fan of what they're doing.E6fanatics (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't forget that the project is intimately linked to LiveSyphon which is the director's production company for producing promo films for bands as per the multiple mentions on the Athens Rising facebook page. If he is suggesting that Athens Rising is an affordable way of promoting a band on his public profile then there doesn't seem to be any dragging through mud as he is openly saying it in public. Also please do not forget that we do not WP:OWN the articles we write and sometimes as per WP:PROUD having an article on wikipedia is not always a very good idea for a person or a company as anyone can edit and add stuff even if it is not positive so long as it is correctly sourced. Wikipedia is not a fansite either. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete largely per nom but also the utter failure to meet WP:GNG and inability to properly source this. Praxidicae (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can go ahead and just delete it through speedy deletion.E6fanatics (talk) 14:58, 2 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recovering Yogi[edit]

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

Not notable and defunct; According to the website, "For now, we’ve decided to pause Recovering Yogi." —Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with above concerning notability. The founders section reads very close to the line of promotional for me. LikeMeercats (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. No third-party coverage. I don't think that being defunct is a big problem, but I don't think this will be notable in the future either. wumbolo ^^^ 21:46, 9 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Houston–SMU football rivalry[edit]

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

Unnecessary content fork of Houston and SMU football teams. Article is poorly sourced; very poorly sourced in the claim that this is a rivalry. p b p 15:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not a content fork. It's also not a rivalry. SportingFlyer talk 22:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - likely WP:SYNTH. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:39, 2 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 09:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ichirō Tanaka[edit]

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

Boilerplate rationale adapted from my previous AfDs of similar photographer articles (such as Keizaburō Saeki), which itself was largely borrowed from Cckerberos at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hideki Kasai. Keizaburō Saeki, Hideki Kasai, and this currently-nominated article are all identical bot-created articles. I have nominated several others for deletion, but have improved and de-orphaned quite a few more when sources have been available.

To quote Cckerberos: "This article is a generic stub, generated by a bot in 2007. It makes no specific claim to notability; it appears that similar stubs were created for every photographer listed in 328 Outstanding Japanese Photographers, all with the format "Name (years) is a renowned Japanese photographer" (compare the nominated article with Gen Ōtsuka, for example). Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography states that the sole criteria for inclusion in the book was to have a single photograph in the museum's permanent collection at the time the book was published. That doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE."

In addition to Cckerberos's excellent commentary, I'll note that I've done as thorough a WP:BEFORE check as possible for an English-speaker: Google searches of both the English and Japanese order of the English transliteration of his name. I have also checked the Japanese name. None of the English transliterations turned up anything of use. The Japanese characters brought up nothing of substance anywhere. Ja.wiki has a disambiguation page for the name, ja:田中一郎, which notes that it's a very common name, so that makes searching all the more difficult.

He does not appear in the reasonably thorough The History of Japanese Photography. The Japanese Wikipedia has no article about him, so there are no sources to be borrowed from it. I searched his Japanese name there and found nothing in any other article, except for the above-noted disambiguation page.

In the absence of reliable sources, we cannot verify that this person is notable, so the article, like many of the previous bot-generated photographers before it, should be deleted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have translated the disambig ja:田中一郎 and none of them were the photographer. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's notable. Google the combination of 田中一郎 (his name) and 写真家 (shashinka, i.e. "photographer"), and a small amount pops up. The problem is that Japanese newspapers put little on the free-access web (they hope that you'll subscribe to a database of their articles); what you do see is from sellers of used books, and from blogs and the like. Here's an example of the former: about Tanaka's book 昨日今日 (Kinō kyō, or possibly Sakujitsu kyō; either meaning "Yesterday [and] today"). And here's an example of the latter: about a very little museum dedicated to Tanaka's photography. Tanaka was born in Takayama and continued to live there for most but not all of his life. His photobooks were mostly self-published, which sounds rather damning till you remember that this is normal for even eminent Japanese photographers (indeed, the reputation of Kiyoshi Suzuki [terrible non-article!] rests on his self-published books). André Kertész spent some time in Takayama and Tanaka produced a book somehow related to this -- quite how related, I don't know offhand -- and Tanaka's name might appear in a good study of Kertész. So all in all Tanaka merits an article, I'd say. But he's an un-trendy photographer from Japan, so I doubt that he'll ever get one. Delete without prejudicing the fate of any future article about him. ¶ PMC, you say here that it might be a good idea if you pinged me about these nominations for deletion; indeed it would. You've been pinging Polbot, but Quadell has commented (rather amusingly) on the futility of this. (See the top of User talk:Polbot.) "If you like," he says, "you can leave me a message at User talk:Quadell"; but Quadell's list of contributions is such that I think any message would go unread if you're lucky or reinforce his unenthusiasm for returning to Wikipedia editing if you're not. -- Hoary (talk) 08:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per PMC. These articles which just assert that the photographer in question is notable but don't evidence the claim don't actually make a credible claim of significance because they don't say why. (I'm using CCS not in the strict CSD definition but in a broader sense.) StraussInTheHouse (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 11 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. Although a significant number of sources in the article, they are essentially all of a routine nature with little to indicate the player gained significant coverage for any achievements of note. The keep votes present no further evidence to satisfy GNG and are speculative at best. Fenix down (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Charles Peecock[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as lacking non-routine coverage other than obituary in local paper; no coverage after obituary. Although Peecock played in football matches, this does not override GNG per the FAQ at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Kges1901 (talk) 10:05, 2 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 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosack (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although Peecock played in football matches, this does not override GNG - there is no evidence that he played at anything other than a very minor level, so no claim to notability based on his footballing endeavours exists anyway (he played for the club that would one day become Ipswich Town, but at a time when they played only low-level local amateur football). To be honest, I can't see any claim to notability here on any grounds. He was a small-town solicitor like thousands of other people, whose obit was published in the local paper like thousands of other people. I am sure he was a good solicitor, but there is nothing whatsoever here to justify a WP article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep this is an incredibly difficult one because it's historical, and while the sources in the article feel routine from their headlines (I can't access them) I think there's a benefit of the doubt on WP:GNG grounds. WP:NFOOTY doesn't apply since it's too old of an article. He is in the 1885 Ipswich Town photo here: [14], played against a Canadian team in 1891 [15] and is covered non-routinely in at least one book: [16]. Other period sources may exist on those grounds, especially if you look at the bibliography of the book. SportingFlyer talk 04:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I am also going by what SportFlyer has pointed out and what I see in the article. It's hard to verify but there appears enough for me to consider that he does just pass GNG. Article feels weak and I get an impression that a lot more could possible be added with the right research. Govvy (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Article is not a stub; it is well researched and well written but there is no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chris above. This is a man who worked for his living, who had a brief obituary in his local paper when he died, and who enjoyed playing sport at a decent but unremarkable level. The "debut" mentioned in the article is a name-check of a 15-year-old boy playing alongside some of his brothers in a game against a school team.
As GiantSnowman says, the article is well researched. It cites several contemporary local newspapers. I'd guess that if there had been anything resembling notability, the page's creator would have found it and used it. I've done a fair bit of research on pre-League players: some were covered at the time in enough depth to pass GNG, but this chap doesn't seem to be one of them.
As to the Ipswich Town FC book mentioned by SportingFlyer, without access to it we can't tell whether it covers him non-routinely or not: the blogger "reviewing" it highlights the amusing names belonging to some of the club's early players, among which several Peecocks, but gives no indication of depth of coverage. Mentions in a history of a club that turned professional 40+ years after he played for it isn't enough for GNG. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:03, 6 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 Paul G. Comba. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 20:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prescott Observatory[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines for places. Article is at least 11 years old, and still has no sources. I attempted to find other external sources documenting its existence or notability, and could not. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 07:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It certainly exists. here is a real estate listing for it. I also found a bit of coverage here and here. Also this and this. It seems to be getting more coverage due to a partnership with SLOOH. Undecided if this is enough for Keep, but leaning that way. The article certainly needs improvement. MB 01:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't work out if this is connected to the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Observatory Complex. If it is, then I would be leaning keep. SpinningSpark 15:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Embry Riddle's telescopes seem to not include the so called Prescott Observatory. [17] According to the only link provided in the article [18], the telescope sits on private land far away from the Embry Riddle campus. I also searched the Prescott local newspaper (The Daily Courier) and couldn't find anything on it. I would be a fan of merging it into Prescott, Arizona. Alternatively it could be included in the page of the astronomer who built it: Paul G. Comba. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 18:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much evidence of notability. I'd suggest a merge into Prescott, Arizona. Praemonitus (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think this is a great nomination but upon reading User:MB's comment and sources am of the opinion User:Praemonitus's solution of a merge is the best option. It would make sense to merge it into Paul G. Comba. LikeMeercats (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Paul G. Comba. When I commented above, I did not realize that article existed. It already has a sentence on the observatory (this place is NOT part of Embry Riddle). I don't think it belongs in Prescott, Arizona because it would have undue weight there. The article on the builder is the perfect place. MB 19:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I support User:MB's proposition to Merge into Paul G. Comba based on his reasoning and have changed my above comment to reflect that. LikeMeercats (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LikeMeercats: please read WP:REDACT. Don't directly change your comments after others have responded to them. wumbolo ^^^ 21:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the builder's article seems okay. It would not be appropriate to merge to Prescott article, because as noted that would require putting undue coverage about this into that article about the city. Merging to the builder's article is not controversial, it doesn't really matter where the coverage sits and a redirect including edit history will be left behind. --Doncram (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Comba's article per everybody else. SpinningSpark 19:21, 10 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppo F5/ F5 Youth[edit]

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

There are two problems with this page, notability and tone. First, it does not satisfy product notability. A Google search reveals that the product exists; we knew that. It also reveals that the product is advertised; we could have guessed that. It does not find independent coverage. Second, this page reads like an advertisement. That isn't reason for deletion, only for trimming, but not much will be left after trimming the promotional language. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert McClenon. Thanks for your helpful feedback. First, in terms of notability, there is at least one existing Wikipage on Oppo phones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppo_F9), and plenty within the Wikiproject for brands. Is there any reason the phone I covered is not notable enough? Do you think there would be a way to change this? Also, I think that you are right to question the tone of my article. I will make an effort to clean up the response so that it doesn't sound like advertising. It is difficult when the page is predominately product information, as it is with other phone wikis. Would it be possible to postpone the deletion while I work on the style? Thanks so much for your help. --Etan2554 (talk) 03:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand this nomination, the refs unambiguously state in quality and quantity this is notable. Szzuk (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Szzuk. Thank you very much for your support. It is much appreciated --Etan2554 (talk) 04:27, 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 09:37, 2 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Northeastern Samar[edit]

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

Non substantive and non encyclopaedic. No indication that this is a recognised term in general use. Mccapra (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Not in use in many places. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:22, 5 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ripples Nigeria[edit]

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

This recently accepted draft appears to be lacking references which speak directly about the subject, in depth. Of the references listed, they are either to the subject's own site, in passing mentions, or not mentioned at all. A preliminary WP:BEFORE didn't unearth much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 20:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure what policy to point to but the subject itself is a Reliable Source, a media outlet with a track record of investigative journalism and an editorial board. It also has run a conference with high profile speakers. They are not a run of this mill website. In the pre internet age they would be a publisher of a newspaper but that is becoming an unsustainable model, especially in the developing world. It seems like any serious mass media news organization with a national or international focus should pass our notabioity line and if not, we should adjust our line for media. Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Legacypac. Everything he/she said is on point.HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not pass WP:GNG and does not seem to have much resemblance of notability. I'm not convinced by the events they organized. wumbolo ^^^ 21:55, 9 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 institutions of higher education in Bangalore. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

T John Institute of Management and Science[edit]

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

No sources besides a primary external link. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. WP:BEFORE failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, at the very least, this should be a redirect to List of institutions of higher education in Bangalore (note: i have not looked for sources as work beckons:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Degree-awarding tertiary institution. We invariably keep these. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The argument that "we invariably keep" colleges is based on the outcomes of previous AfDs and is not an assertion the topic's notability. In order to establish notability, we need independent coverage of the topic. I'm having a bit of trouble finding such sources. At the bare minimum, we should be able to find a record of their NAAC accreditation (as claimed by the school's website) somewhere. BenKuykendall (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need something more than an institutions' own website to keep an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Coolhapabpple's target.Not an iota of non-trivial coverage, in any damn source.And, N, didn't you voluntarily pledge months back to never touch school AfDs post some AN/ANI thread or am I hallucinating?∯WBG^converse 20:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of sources independent of the subject Spiderone 10:57, 10 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 The Killer Angels. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buster Kilrain[edit]

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

An article about a minor fictional character? Qwirkle (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Killer Angels. Doesn't look like a notable fictional character. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Killer Angels due to lack of coverage. Aoba47 (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Seems unlikely the redirect would get much use, but since they're cheap... --Michig (talk) 07:29, 9 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. Michig (talk) 07:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Kohli[edit]

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

Non-notable actor with no significant coverage in reliable sources and current sources do not mention the subject. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as cannot find any evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Four minor roles in IMDb. Fails WP:NACTOR. Narky Blert (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 09:20, 4 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) 02:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Novogratz[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Lacks the detailed independent sources required John from Idegon (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She was literally on the cover of Forbes, if that's not enough to prove notability then I don't know what is. Google News is turning up a number of other good sources as well. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 08:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Forbes coverage, NYTimes (OK it's her text, but they chose to profile her), etc. Notable. PamD 10:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with the above front cover of Forbes is pretty notable, while a profile in NYT is the same.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is too promotional, and needs more citations, but AfD is not clean-up. She clearly passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of this article passes WP:GNP - has won prestigious awards and fellowships, featured on cover of Forbes, The NYTimes featured her - sources check out. The article needs work, but that is not cause for deletion. Netherzone (talk) 03:26, 6 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 Written Hokkien. Sandstein 14:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hàn-jī[edit]

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

Not actually a distinct writing system, it's just Chinese characters (with some unique ones, but it's still not as distinct as, say, Chu Nom. Not notable, google search returned nothing, couldn't find an indication of topic's notability from a brief search of scholarly database. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 04:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Written Hokkien which covers the use of Chinese for Hokkien much more fully with sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds reasonable, but I'm not sure if it would be better to redirect there, or maybe redirect to Chinese characters, seeing as that's what Han-ji means. Should the Hokkien for Chinese characters redirect to Hokkien writing, or Chinese characters? I'm not sure we need it at all. --Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 22:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see where you are coming from on this. I agree, Hàn-jī just means Chinese characters. But it’s a far less likely search term than e.g. Hanzi, so there is much less need for it. But as an article that’s existed a couple of years there may be links to it from elsewhere, it may be cached in e.g. search engines or browser caches. Anyone accessing it is likely looking for the content that’s there now, and the best place to send them is the article that covers the topic properly, which is Written Hokkien.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:29, 4 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 Procedural close. Deletion is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 2#Donald Trump's false and misleading claims which is the more appropriate venue for a redirect discussion SpinningSpark 14:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's false and misleading claims[edit]

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

Reason Markbassett (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate that redirect for deletion as a very recent non-useful POVTITLE WP:RNEUTRAL concern that is just a descriptive formed by a WP editor. Redirect creation seems an impulsive act during a move discussion that went against using the title, and is not useful for search, so now just needs cleanup.

The redirect is a descriptive formed by editors and not a term in common use. It is appears to be a WP:POVTITLE, placing a mildly derogatory title into WP that is not useful. In particular, searches for similar phrasings seem able to find relevant pages without this redirect. This redirect therefore seems to fit the WP:RNEUTRAL section : "redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3".

The phrasing "false and misleading" is one tied to advertising, often followed by the word "claims", and in the context of all "Donald Trump" in Google (currently 241 Million), it is highly uncommon - googling with both phrases hits only 22,100. The problem seems that "false" is by far the COMMONNAME, with 58.9 million -- the simpler "false statements" at 406,000 dominates and a synthesis with the uncommon "misleading" into "false and misleading" is highly uncommon.

Further background:

The page was created while a discussion was ongoing over a proposed move to this title at | Talk:Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump#Requested_move_25_October_2018.

That discussion is now closed with "The result of the move request was: Not Moved. Both sides have good arguments, but no consensus to move is present. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC) ".
The redirect creator voiced only weak interest there for redirect
The only other mention was from JFG that the title is a mild mismatch and that other redirects already exist:

"Oppose per WP:POVTITLE. Also, the proposed change would reduce scope to a mere list of false and misleading statements, whereas an analysis of Trump's communication style, rhetoric and "persuasion technique" (© Scott Adams) is a more encyclopedic way to approach the issue. To answer the OP's concern about readers "looking for information on the falsehoods, fictitious claims, misleading hyperbole", we have plenty of redirects[19] such as False and misleading statements by Donald Trump, Donald Trump's false and misleading claims and Trump's relationship to truth. — JFG ^talk 05:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)"[reply]

I have already made mention of intent to nominate within the TALK below that line "JFG is right the proposed is a WP:POVTITLE policy topic, but procedurally it's creation as a redirect while this talk was ongoing seems to have made a WP:RNEUTRAL issue. I'll file for deletion pending. It should be consensus decision BEFORE action. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)"[reply]

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:21, 2 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 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:37, 2 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. Michig (talk) 07:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2022 NBA All-Star Game[edit]

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

Per WP:TOOSOON. This is still over 3 years away. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:CRYSTAL, such articles are okay if preparation for the event is already in progress, which is the case as an arena has been announced. For comparison, the article for the 2021 NBA All-Star Game was also created after the location was announced. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is becoming an annual ritual. We have a site and date; barring intervention by a comet or an out-of-nowhere freshwater lake tsunami on Lake Erie (or a players strike/lockout), it's happening. Nate • (chatter) 02:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes the first section of WP:CRYSTAL, which specifically allows for articles about scheduled, notable events that are almost certain to take place, near future Olympics and U.S. presidential elections being given as examples. This falls right under that. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 06:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all of the reasons above. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP: TOOSOON. Vorbee (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep precedent has been previously set - if no venue had been announced it would have been delete - cant chop and change what is done on Wikipedia - consistency is needed.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while it's four years away, there does appear to be sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. This is a notable event that is definitely going to take place. Keep in mind that we have articles on the Olympics as far away as 2028, and the World Cup as far away as 2034. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My !vote from the 2021 AfD is applicable here too: "Per WP:CRYSTAL: 'Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.' The host city, date, and venue has been announced, and there is no reason to think the event will not be notable, as all past annual NBA All-Star Games have been. At this point, WP:IAR, as there is nothing to be gained by creating a bureaucracy to delete only to inevitably recreate again."—Bagumba (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many things scheduled for 3+ years in the future are articles, including elections and other sports events. This is no different. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:46, 9 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.

[1] Reference #1 – A single image of a person in a publication

[asdf-2] Reference #2 – Passing mention

[1]

[2]

v t e Orders of magnitude
Quantity	Acceleration Angular momentum Area Bit rate Charge Computing Current Data Density Energy / Energy density Entropy Force Frequency Illuminance Length Luminance Magnetic field Mass Molarity Numbers Power Pressure Probability Radiation Sound pressure Specific heat capacity Speed Temperature Torque Time Voltage Volume
See also	Back-of-the-envelope calculation Best-selling electronic devices Fermi problem Powers of 10 and decades 10th 100th 1000000th Metric (SI) prefix Macroscopic scale Microscopic scale
Related	Astronomical system of units Earth's location in the Universe Cosmic View (1957 book) To the Moon and Beyond (1964 film) Cosmic Zoom (1968 film) Powers of Ten (1968 and 1977 films) Cosmic Voyage (1996 documentary) The Scale of the Universe (2010) Cosmic Eye (2012)
Category