Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 November	21 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 redirect to List of schools in the London Borough of Wandsworth#Primary schools. Mz7 (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Belleville Wix Academy[edit]

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

Primary school that does not appear to meet WP:GNG. I can't find a meaningful target to redirect. Pichpich (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in the London Borough of Wandsworth#Primary schools where it is mentioned. Just Chilling (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rats.... How did I not see that? In any case, I'm fine with a redirect so if anyone wants to close this early and redirect, do go ahead. Pichpich (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. A WP:BEFORE search doesn't bring up any reliable sources besides one or two trivial mentions, so this fails WP:GNG. However, I don't see any harm with keeping it as a redirect, considering redirects are cheap and it is mentioned at the List of schools in the London Borough of Wandsworth page.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 17:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per G11. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Shameel PC[edit]

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

I would say A7 applies. fails basic GNG. Saqib (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Olumide Babalola[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Sources are trivial mentions only. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Fails general notability guidelines per WP:NBIO. No in-depth new coverage on the subject matter.

Is Nutin 19:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soltesh (talk • contribs)

Weak delete I can find some reviews of or articles about his legal dictionary, but certainly not enough citations of his other works to count for anything. I suspect WP:TOOSOON. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:26, 27 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mahayogi Akshar Nath[edit]

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

Promotional article with insufficient evidence of significant independent coverage. Most sources are press releases, the subject's own website, or various advertorials. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 20:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 19:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PROMO for yoga master with very tricky moves fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LTV Channel[edit]

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

Appears to have no sources except a Youtube channel (if you can call that a source), a search on google gives nothing. Remagoxer (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage from secondary reliable sources (and I was not able to find anything that would add to notability). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 19:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2010 LLAF Cup[edit]

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

Just a competition, akin to a semi-large college meet in the US. Only annual edition with an article. Geschichte (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Renata (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 19:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be moved to draft space upon request. Randykitty (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

S.D.C.[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It meets the WP:NOTABILITY. The page can't be deleted because S.D.C. is a very famous manufacturer and needs to have a Wikipedia article. look at Technical Park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameies (talk • contribs) 00:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Mynameies (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Note The above unsigned comment was left by Mynameies in the middle of the delsort notices in front of my signature. To avoid confusion about the attribution, I moved it here. Bakazaka (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Use your sandbox to put together a proper page with citations, then resubmit it. As it stands right now this article is not notable. Also note that SDC built 49 coasters. Don't list a dozen and call it done. Do some research, get all the information, then resubmit the article for consideration.—JlACEer (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If article creator is willing to move it to sandbox while sources are added, it would be the best way forward. Otherwise DELETE for lack of sources to establish notability - which does not exist for all manufacturing companies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 19:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:39, 28 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Little Bill Clinton[edit]

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

Notability concerns for this series of journalistic articles. The NYTimes references are trivial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not sustained by the references. To be notable we would need significant coverage in references independent to the subject of the piece (i.e., the series of articles), but instead we only have the series of articles to support notability, and trivial mentions of it in the NYT. FOARP (talk) 13:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 19:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete searches I ran indicate that while the newspaper that ran this series covered it, other media did not. Fails WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:35, 28 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Pais[edit]

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

Non-notable pianist. Natg 19 (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:56, 13 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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seeing almost no coverage at all, let alone significant coverage in reliable sources. The only references given in the article are YouTube, Facebook, the artist's website, and what appears to be a blog site (I tried checking what http://chabadinfo.com/ is, but it isn't in a language I am able to read, and I could find no information about it other than the website itself). Appears to fail WP:NMUSIC; winning the Bradshaw and Buono International Piano Competition is fine, but it does not rise to the level of a "major music competition" in my opinion. It appears on List of classical music competitions, but that page has hundreds of competitions including many for youth performers. I would suggest that there is no credible claim of significance in this article, and it could really be a candidate for WP:A7. CThomas³ (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 19:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are too many pianists of comparable notoriety in the world to cover them in this encyclopedia. -- Oisguad (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparent PROMO for a pianist with no claim to notability, fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:42, 28 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North Texas–UTSA football rivalry[edit]

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

WP:GNG requires f a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. The article lacks GNG citations of a rivalry. (There are 5 citations: 1. "There’s also a budding rivalry between the two schools." 2. none - a schedule list, 3. valid citation, 4. none, 5. a box score) The prior AfD did not discover WP:RS citations to establish a rivalry. Post-AfD discussion (Talk:North Texas–UTSA football rivalry#Please improve) generated no response from those who !Voted keep. Fails GNG as written, possibly WP:TOOSOON with only five games played. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing in the sources which indicate this is a rivalry of any notability, apart from the fact it may become one in the future. SportingFlyer talk 04:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 18:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Game summaries attempting to masquerade as an article. I agree with the nominator in that the sourcing that suggests this might be a potential rivalry, but insufficient sources exist on which to build an article. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons I gave in the last AFD on this subject, and now per WP:UNOPPOSED.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:39, 27 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. No prejudice against creating a plausible redirect. Randykitty (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Sisnett[edit]

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

No independent notability besides this person's reaching an advanced age. His entries on the List of the verified oldest men and List of oldest people by country are sufficient. — JFG ^talk 16:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect WP:NOPAGE. Almost entirely longevity trivia. E Eng 19:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article blatantly fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like a list of claimed records, a list of different nick-names, and someone once wrote a birthday song for him. His name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the two lists they already reside on. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find plenty of coverage for some years before he died. The Barbados government considered him a national treasure [1]; the street he lived on was renamed after him, during his life [2]; he is acknowledged as a source of information by the author of the book Empire and Nation-Building in the Caribbean: Barbados, 1937-66 (Oxford University Press, 2013) [3]; he took part in genetic studies of longevity [4]; and he appeared on a stamp [5]. We are not judging the quality of the article, but the notability of the subject of the article. He meets WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree he may very well be notable, but NOPAGE still applies. E Eng 12:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know? Have you looked at all the available sources? RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. E Eng
Delete/redirect per the nomination and EEng. There's basically nothing here of substance. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:43, 27 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soledad Mexia[edit]

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

No independent notability besides this person's reaching an advanced age. Her entries on the List of the verified oldest women and List of American supercentenarians are sufficient. — JFG ^talk 16:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article blatantly fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like her various moves, family tree, her life interests and was part of some longevity studies. Her name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the List of American supercentenarians where they already reside. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. On a side note, @JFG, she hasn't been on the list of oldest women for over five years and had only reached spot 100 when she died. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find very little coverage until she died. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:26, 27 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maria de Jesus[edit]

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

No independent notability besides this person's reaching an advanced age. Her entries on the List of the verified oldest women and List of Portuguese supercentenarians are sufficient. — JFG ^talk 16:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, any world's oldest person should always be guaranteed an article. LE (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no notability policy or guideline that the "oldest x" is notable or entitled to an article. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not dying does not make someone notable. WP:NOPAGE applies. Delete to discourage recreation then create a redirect to the appropriate list. Legacypac (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not dying for an incredible amount of time does make someone notable and creation of articles on every world's-oldest should be encouraged. LE (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, LE, for plainly showing that your opinion in this AFD is pure WP:ILIKEIT and can be disregarded by the closer since it's not rooted in any policy or guideline. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article blatantly fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like she only visited a hospital once, had a child born on Christmas and her taste in food. Her name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the six lists they already reside on. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlike those campaigning against articles about supercentenarians copying their "reasons" from one page to another, I am voting delete in this case because I find very little coverage of this individual. Some on her 115th birthday, but not (as far as I can see), sustained over more than just a few months, not in-depth, and no evidence of participation in books or documentaries or other activities that would indicate that she became widely known. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:12, 27 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yone Minagawa[edit]

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

No independent notability besides this person's reaching an advanced age. Her entries on the List of the verified oldest women and List of Japanese supercentenarians are sufficient. — JFG ^talk 16:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, any world's oldest person should always be guaranteed an article. LE (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy or guideline that the "oldest x" is notable or entitled to an article. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- concur with @Legacypac's comments regarding another (similar) AFD, to wit "not dying does not make someone notable. WP:NOPAGE applies." Quis separabit? 22:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning on the other page. Legacypac (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article blatantly fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like she was a single mother to five kids, liked to dance in her wheelchair to music, and a breakdown of who succeeded who for what title. Her name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the four lists they already reside on. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find very little coverage of her. A little on her 114th birthday, some when she became the oldest person in the world, and then of course when she died - and that little is all within the space of a few months. So while she might possibly be considered to meet WP:GNG, she does not meet WP:SUSTAINED (at least when searching on her name in Roman script; there may well be more in Japanese). RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:31, 27 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yukichi Chuganji[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent notability besides this person's reaching an advanced age. His entries on the List of the verified oldest men and List of Japanese supercentenarians are sufficient. — JFG ^talk 16:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, such extraordinarily advanced age should always be regarded as notable. (How many AfD nominations in how quick succession -- the last was in September -- should be tolerated before more become barred as a nuisance?) LE (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in any notability guideline or policy does it say "oldest X is notable" or "living to age X is notable". CommanderLinx (talk) 06:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommanderLinx is correct, and I would add that complaining that there were previous AfD's so more should be banned is the sign of a weak argument. You can't defend the article on its merits, so you try to save it on a technicality redline you yourself want to retroactively create. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article blatantly fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like mundane record explanations, number of living children, and the standard longevity secret. His name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the four lists they already reside on. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A policy that YES, the oldest living man is notable is what is needed! LE (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just living a long time does not make one notable. This is not the Guiness Book of World Records.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to appropriate list. WP:NOPAGE should almost certainly apply here. There is never going to be more than the absolute bare basics to say about him. He was born, he had a daughter, bred silkworms, became oldest living man and then died. Throw in some fluffy trivia about predecessors/successor and that someone else was older but now isn't recognised but this WP:PERMASTUB is easily handled on a list somewhere. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So a man this extraordinarily ancient does not rate an article but Patrick Bouvier Kennedy does? LE (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm. And read Zhuangzi on Pengzu. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second the above facepalm. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:WAX are not valid arguments for keeping this one. But feel free to nominate that one for deletion if you want. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:34, 27 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fred H. Hale Sr.[edit]

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

No independent notability besides this person's reaching an advanced age. His entries on the List of the verified oldest men and List of American supercentenarians are sufficient. — JFG ^talk 16:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this man was the oldest man in the United States for a while and, for a time, the oldest man in the world, which surely confers on him some type of notability. Vorbee (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no notability guideline or policy that the "oldest x" is notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article spells out a number of things remarkable about him beyond the extraordinary longevity that ought to suffice in itself. LE (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no notability guideline or policy that the "oldest x" is notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article basically says he lived and died. Nothing beyond routine coverage of him and, contrary to the votes above, staving off the Angel of Death longer than anyone else in an arbitrarily defined geographical area is not inherently notable. Reliable sources need to provide in-depth, detailed coverage of said occurrence, and that has rather plainly not happened with him. As an aside, the stuff about him being annoyed by slow drivers is up there for the most irrelevant filler material I've ever seen in these articles, which is truly saying something. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. The question is whether Hale passes WP:GNG, not whether living to a certain age makes one notable (it does not). The sources do not indicate that the subject is notable by Wikipedia's standards.--TM 20:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is something seriously wrong with WP:GNG if it does not acknowledge that becoming oldest man in the world does make someone notable. LE (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you become the oldest person in the world, only your age is notable, not your life and deeds. Besides, becoming the "oldest man" or "oldest woman" is not a title that you fight for or pass on to the next person, it's just a consequence of random statistics of life and death. As hundreds of people are now known to be over 110 and eagerly followed by a bunch of trackers, nobody is likely to remain the Oldest One for more than a few months; indeed we have seen cases where the "record holder" only lasted a few days in that spot. Hence treating this subject as a dynamic list is the most sensible approach for Wikipedia's purposes, which are not the same as those of Guinness World Records. — JFG ^talk 04:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oldest man on earth is notable. Oldest man in one of 195 soreign states is not. -- Oisguad (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article blatantly fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like a list of claimed records (including oldest registered bee keeper!), first went surfing at 95 and drove a car until 108. His name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the three lists they already reside on, as the only notable thing about this man was his age. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not that I expect it will make any difference. As this is one of 16 AfDs for supercentenarians posted on the same day, it is not possible to research all of them. JFG says, "When you become the oldest person in the world, only your age is notable, not your life and deeds." Where is the policy that says that? That is treating all people of a certain age as exactly the same. They are not - they are individuals, some notable, some not - and some may be notable for things they do or attention they receive when they reach an advanced age. The details given of this man's life suggest that there may well be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", but as that doesn't count because for a time he was the oldest man in the world, why bother researching it or trying to improve the article? RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to appropriate list. Fails WP:GNG as coverage consists of either WP:ROUTINE obituaries or unreliable sources (I've removed the findagrave and alt.obituaries links). CommanderLinx (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:19, 28 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo Licata[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent notability besides this person's reaching an advanced age. His entries on the List of the verified oldest men and List of Italian supercentenarians are sufficient. — JFG ^talk 15:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was actually going to make this a minibio, hence the initial mess that I think I've cleaned up, but upon reading this over I think outright deletion is the best course of action. He lived and died, really no information besides that; all routine coverage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article blatantly fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like he walked 14 miles a day when young (I wonder if it was uphill both ways to?) and his family tree. His name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the two lists they already reside on. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:19, 24 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. A possible merge can be discussed on the article's talk page. Meanwhile, somebody should look at the formatting of this list, becuase all that unnecessary bolding is hurting my eyes... Randykitty (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragonlance modules and sourcebooks[edit]

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

Listing of books for D+D play. There's no other content here, and WP:NOTCATALOG. Mikeblas (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules. Most of the significant information is contained in that list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to list as per suggestion from Sjakkalle. BOZ (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into List of Dragonlance novels. If this article is to be deleted are you suggesting that similar lists for the other D&D campaigns are also deleted? Deagol2 (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, oppose merge because that would create clutter. There are enough works here for it to remain standalone. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Week Thus Far[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of 24.77.148.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who previously prodded the article with the rationale "comedy act of only local interest, not notable, website no longer works". I declined the prod on procedural grounds but the IP added an AfD tag so I'm assuming good faith and completing the nomination.

For my part, I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has reliable sources coverage already in the article including published press and magazines so passes WP:GNG regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:42, 27 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. While the article may not contain references, multiple sources were provided by SpinningSpark during this discussion, and the consensus is to keep the article accordingly. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Civil flag[edit]

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

Unclear if this is a real thing (i.e. passes WP:V). I can certainly find lots of google hits to the term "civil flag", but none that are WP:RS. They're mostly blogs (many of which refer to this article), and lots of companies selling flags. Even our own File:United States civil flag.svg refers to it as, The claimed "United States Civil Flag" I found a site that's dedicated to the Flag of the United States of America. It has lots of quotes from the U.S. Code, but none mention the term civil flag. This is mentioned in National flag, but that article is pretty much a WP:OR-fest. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Talk:Flag of the United_States/Archive 3#United States Civil Flag, which notes that a previous US-focused version of this page has been deleted as a fringe theory probably derived from a fictional description of a Customs flag in The Scarlet Letter. The US-focused AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Civil Flag. Bakazaka (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of book sources using the term [6][7][8] including a Britannica book (read the footnote on the linked page. It's certainly true that the merchant marine and military navies of countries commonly use different flags. SpinningSpark 23:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- this is no more than a dictionary definition -- Transwikify? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the civil flags of the United Kingdom, Malta, Singapore, Bahamas and others. There is no good reason that we should not have an article on what a civil flag is. That it may need improvement is not a reason to delete it. Mjroots (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- per Spinningspark. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spinningspark. Atchom (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spinningspark.--1l2l3k (talk) 02:04, 27 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 List of role-playing games. Weighing arguments against policy leaves us with just the 1 thin rs. That's not enough for a standalone. By rights that leads to deletion based on the discussion but its within broader community norms and my discretion as closer to set this as a smerge. Closing as redirect to article but leaving history for the selective merge Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Mountain Witch[edit]

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

For preceding 12 years this article on a commercial product has had only one source: a non-RS link to a message board. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) fails to find any additional sources. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This Role-playing Game was multiply reviewed, satisfying NBOOK, and is also cited repeatedly for its influence in the field in Designers & Dragons, Volume 4. (Per policy, Books should not be discussed according to NPRODUCT). Inappropriate nomination; AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Newimpartial (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide evidence of "multiple reviews" in RS per our standard requirement that sources must be demonstrated, not just asserted? Also, I am unable to find an entry for this in "Designers & Dragons, Volume 4" - can you please provide a page number for verification? Chetsford (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page refences are 183, 252, 290 and 293. Next time, perhaps, consult the index. ;) Newimpartial (talk)

Thanks, I'm not seeing it but - in any case - can you please provide evidence of "multiple reviews" in RS? Or was it just that one? Chetsford (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Among the many reviews that are just as readily "seen" as the index of Designers & Dragons (Volume 4), I would commend one from flames rising, a publication professionally edited by Chetsford's nemesis, Monica Valentinelli. Newimpartial (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure a blog counts as a review for GNG. Also, the review is signed "Clyde"; pseudononymous reviews are not generally considered RS as professional publications typically use an author's surname. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flames rising is/was an editorially vetted publication; the term "blog" is usually used on-wiki for self-published sources, not ones professionally edited by your nemesis. Newimpartial (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree a blog post signed by "Clyde" (no last name) is RS, I think we'll have to agree to disagree and let the other !voters decide if a post by "Clyde" is sufficient to meet GNG. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chetford, the term "post" is correctly applied to self-published sources and forum contributions. This review is neither. But by all means, let us agree to disagree - your record pretty much speaks for itself. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Newimpartial in spirit and especially if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to List of role-playing games. BOZ (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Newimpartial. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion was closed as "keep" but is now relisted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 November 5.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (summarizing from my DRV comments) I'm not convinced Flames Rising is a WP:RS. The about page describes it as a fanzine. That doesn't (ahem) conjure up visions of strict editorial oversight. The submissions guidelines says, we encourage you to submit your content to our site in order to gain exposure and publicity for whatever it is you’re working on. typically, we only edit reviews for basic spelling and grammar and do not alter your written content.They also allow the review author to retain copyright, and don't pay for reviews. These are not the sorts of things which scream out WP:RS. They do provide some editorial oversight; they describe the types of content they want to publish, and reserve the right to reject items that don't fit their needs. So, not a totally anything-goes, hands-off WP:UGC blog. But, on the spectrum of reliable-sourcitude, more on the bloggy end of the spectrum and not something to base a WP:GNG claim on. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: a merge to some appropriate target would be fine. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that, in addition to Designers & Dragons Volume 4 (multiple page references provided above), the RS concerning this game include an extended discussion in a scholarly article here and a discussion in the dead tree book Dragons in the Stacks (Torres-Roman and Snow, 2014). The notability of the game by no means rests on the status of Flames Rising' as a reliable source; the game has been widely noted as an influential pioneer in the Indie RPG movement of the 00s. Newimpartial (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will grudgingly admit that International Journal of Role-Playing is a WP:RS in that it's a peer-reviewed academic journal. But, it's about as marginal as they come, with a total of seven issues published in ten years. We also have very different ideas of what an extended discussion means. The article is about the differences between tabletop, live-action, and digital role-playing games, and only uses The Mountain Witch as an example of one of the categories. It's discussed for one paragraph (plus one other mention) in a 14 page paper. And most of what's said about it is generic to most gamemaster-moderated RPGs. I don't have a copy of Designers & Dragons, Volume 4, nor can I find one on line. It would be useful if you could provide appropriate experts from the coverage so we can better evaluate it's quality as a source. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "International Journal of Role Playing" does not appear to be indexed by any indexation service and its editorial board includes people without terminal degrees. Also, the mention is a single paragraph, not an "extended discussion". But, even if we were to grant this questionable source, we are left with that and Designers & Dungeons which, itself, the community has been unable to arrive at a consensus to its reliability [9]. Two mentions in marginal sources aren't generally indicative of something being "widely noted". Chetsford (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for anyone else, RoySmith, but what I meant by "an extended discussion" was, essentially, a non-trivial mention. The criterion set out in the GNG is

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.

Trivial mentions, such as name-dropping, are excluded, but other mentions count towards GNG coverage. I would also submit that the author of the article is not referring to The Mountain Witch arbitrarily or at random - the example was selected to show where simplistic depictions of GM-Player structures do not apply. The author therefore had a limited selection of tabletop games to choose from, and selecting The Mountain Witch has to be seen as attributing some significance to it as a case (as indeed is true of the other RS I've presented, as well).

As far as Designers & Dragons, Vol. 4 is concerned, The Mountain Witch is cited as a significant influence on the work of both Vincent Baker (p. 183) and Jason Morningstar (p. 290); that a work is cited by peers and/or successors in the field should contribute in an important way to Notability, and we have a reliable source saying this. Newimpartial (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In his analysis of Designers & Dragons, a book published by the Mongoose company which appears to manufacture card games and action figures [10] (and so may or may not be a reputable publisher of literature but isn't exactly Oxford University Press or Taylor & Francis), DHBoggs concluded it had "sloppy scholarship and [a] lack of decent references". I'm inclined to agree with his perspective from my own assessment. Also, from nothing more than a quick glance at the BLPs for Vincent Baker and Jason Morningstar, they appear to be candidates for deletion themselves, though I haven't looked into them carefully yet. Chetsford (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: It would be very helpful if you could provide actual quotes from Designers & Dragons, so people can do their own evaluation. On that note, I found a copy of Dragons in the Stacks on-line. The only mention is in the 2nd paragraph on page 188. I don't consider that to be significant coverage. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford, it may have slipped your mind, but the actual closure of your RFC was not your colour-coded table, but rather, that Designers & Dragons is generally reliable as a source for facts on games and game companies. Not recommended for use in biographies of living people or to support clearly controversial statements. That policy-based closure is not accurately reflected in your claim that the community has been unable to arrive at a consensus to its reliability; perhaps you were mis-remembering the actual consensus when you referred to Designers & Dragons as a "marginal source"? Also, you are raising questions of WP:SCHOLARSHIP which, as has been pointed out to you previously, do not apply to whether or not a source contributes to Notability. And why are you raising a review of a prior edition of Designers & Dragons - itself not a reliable source - written on a blog by a Wikipedia editor? And if you do find his view significant, why do you not cite his overall comment to your RFC, in which he says In my opinion the work is not wholly reliable, though certain sections dealing with later game development may be. You seem to be treating the available evidence rather selectively, for some reason. BATTLEGROUND much? Newimpartial (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"it may have slipped your mind, but the actual closure of" The actual closure did not address the question of the use of Designers & Dragons for establishing notability. There was no consensus on that point, which is why I linked to the section I did. The closure only established it could be used for rudimentary facts and not used for BLPs (in the same vein, we often allow business journals to be used for basic facts but not to establish notability on profitmaking companies). "Also, you are raising questions of WP:SCHOLARSHIP which, as has been pointed out to you previously, do not apply to whether or not a source contributes to Notability." No, I'm raising questions of reliability. If by "pointed out to you previously" you mean you've pointed them out previously, I appreciate I'll have to agree to disagree with your interpretation of what constitutes RS for role-play games, as always. Chetsford (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith, the first reference in the Jason Morningstar section concerns his influences at the Forge community: "Lumpley Games’ Dogs in the Vineyard (2005) continued Morningstar’s indoctrination; many more pivotal games followed — among them The Mountain Witch (2005), Primetime Adventures (2004), and The Shadow of Yesterday (2004)." The Vincent Baker section concerns his highly influential Apocalypse World design: "Baker also notes many inspirational sources; he says that character moves were based on the secrets in Clinton Nixon’s The Shadow of Yesterday (2004), while other mechanics or design were inspired by The Mountain Witch (2005), Over the Edge (1992), Primetime Adventures, Sex and Sorcery (2003) ..." To me, this shows wide recognition by peers or successors, which is one aspect we are supposed to be considering as part of Notability. Kenneth Hite is another important figure who has discussed the importance of The Mountain Witch at some length, though the main instance of this that I could easily find was in audio format, which is not easily cited. Similarly, it would be fairly tedious to go through all of the forwards of games published in the last 13 years that acknowledge the influence of The Mountain Witch, though there would be a significant number.

Also note that Chetsford's efforts to date to take down WP articles on games that met with a similar reception to The Mountain Witch have not been particularly successful. Newimpartial (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And Chetsford, there is no basis in policy for distinguishing between the reliability of an independently-published source and its contribution to Notability, as you should know by now. (As I understand it, the reason business journals may notcontribute to WP:N is that they are not considered fully independent, and with good reason.)

In sum, you do not "disagree with [my] interpretation of what constitutes RS for Role-playing games", you disagree with consensus, and on more than one occasion. You might as well be out about it. Newimpartial (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Also note that Chetsford's efforts to date to take down WP articles on games that met with a similar reception to The Mountain Witch have not been particularly successful" Hmmmm ... I'm not sure that's a very accurate statement. But, in any case, could you help us understand the policy basis for !voting Keep due to "Chetsford's ... efforts to take down WP articles on games"? I'm not familiar with that policy. I tried checking WP:CHETSFORD but didn't see anything. Chetsford (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a policy-based argument for !voting Keep, it's an evidence-based argument for taking your unsourced claims as unproven, and for grounded skepticism about your choice of terms (q.v this gem, doubled down at ANI, no less). Newimpartial (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"That's not a policy-based argument for !voting Keep, it's an ..." Noted. To keep this discussion topical and concise, please limit commentary to the question of the AfD, not denouncements of individual participants or descriptions of grievances from unrelated discussions. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that is truly how you feel, then you might want to strike through this contribution, which does not notably advance the discussion taking place here. But I thought you were woke. Newimpartial (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of sources against our WP:V standards is a usual element in AfD discussions (see WP:DISCUSSAFD); using the discussion to air a general list of grievances against other editors is not. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "airing a general list of grievances", I am placing your current selective quotations and tendentious statements in context, for those who may not be aware of the background. This contribution is a misleading excerpt from one of the contributions to the RSN discussion you started, and you presented your selection quite out of context. Placing the misleading "evidence" another editor presents into full context is an important part of AFD, unless of course editors can refrain from making selective and misleading arguments. Newimpartial (talk) 07:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Chetsford (talk) 09:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Chetsford. You know an article is in serious trouble when there's just two reverences and one of them is a web forum post. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That has to be one of the worst !votes I have ever seen at AfD, and I've seen some bad !votes. I have posted at least three additional RS references to this discussion in addition to those in the current version of the article. Remember, people, it's the potential sourcing that matters at AfD, not the actual article sourcing. Per policy, a non-BLP should pass AfD with no sources in the article if sufficient RS have been identified in the AfD discussion, and here we have four...nothing personal, but whoah. Newimpartial (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That has to be one of the worst !votes I have ever seen at AfD, and I've seen some bad !votes. You've been asked numerous times by numerous editors not to use AfD to belittle others. I would like to politely ask you again. Chetsford (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chstsford, I was making a policy-based comment about the !vote, not about the contributor. There isn't anything belittling about calling a !vote out that isn't compliant to policy. Please keep your comments on my behaviour (even misleading ones, as in this case) to our respective Talk pages, and save AfD for relevant interventions. Newimpartial (talk) 23:29, 25 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. Two good reviews available & strong library holdings. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs: Their Fossil Relatives and Evolutionary History[edit]

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

I'm finding one professional review of this [11]; other than that, appears to be a solid but unexceptional textbook that has not received the coverage required for books to be considered notable. (There's a U of Alabama WikiEd project in the works, in the context of which one editor appears to wish to expand this article. However, that's not going to roll in the form they envision; they don't deal with the book per se at all, just summarize the contents. I'm leaving them an explanation on their talk page.) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i am surprised there are not more reviews available, especially as it is held in over 1000 libraries, i did find this review (really just a summary of the book) from Choice (which would make 2 reviews including the one found by the nom) but haven't found any others. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I should have checked the library holdings. That's probably a good argument for keeping... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Meets WP:TBK by being held in over 1000 libraries and per GScholar being cited by 145 scholarly works. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added Lewis' review as a reference. I also added another suitable reference (a review by Yule). Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice - I think that does it. I'll withdraw. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Lucas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent notability besides reaching the age of 110. This person is now "too young" to be included in the top 100 List of British supercentenarians or List of the verified oldest men. Nothing to preserve. — JFG ^talk 11:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article blatantly fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like his reason for not serving in either World War and he played a ball game for 50 years. There is nothing to preserve about this man, including this WP:PERMASTUB. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just living a long time does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, two WP:ROUTINE birthday articles and one unlinked article does not make someone notable. WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB would apply even if "notable". I also agree with the nom for deletion as there is no suitable table or list to redirect. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find very little coverage apart from some reports of his 110th birthday, and of his death. Therefore, I would say he does not meet WP:GNG, not because of the quality of the references included in the article - that is not an argument for deletion, and not because he "just lived a long time" - that does not preclude anyone from meeting WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Article's AfD located here. Separate AfD not needed for the talk page. Seems to have been done in error. (non-admin closure) WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Javier Martín-Torres[edit]

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

All reasons in talk page Daiyusha (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Berner (supercentenarian)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent notability besides this person's reaching an advanced age. His entry on the List of the verified oldest men is sufficient. — JFG ^talk 10:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of him that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that living longer then most is notable. The content of the article is just basic info about moves, employment, and family. He lived. He avoided the Reaper longer then most. He died. Pure case of WP:NOPAGE. His age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on two different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. All routine coverage, best to handle the relevant statistics on a list. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB would apply anyway. The three references are from New York based articles which is local coverage because he retired to the area. Let's look. The first is a WP:ROUTINE obituary. The second I believe is a WP:PRIMARY source as it's an article from the Juniper Park Association which he volunteered at for 60 years. The third is another local article that tells us he's "probably the oldest in the city" (key word is bolded). Even if these sources somehow made him "notable", this article cannot (and most likely will not) be expanded beyond born, moved to France/US, worked, got married and had a daughter and then died. So better handled on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In depth coverage from his 104th birthday on ('Big Town, Big Heart - Celebrating New Yorkers who make a difference'[12], hosted by NY Mayor Bloomberg in Times Square at the launch of an anti-litter campaign, and presented by the White House volunteer service organisation director with a President's Volunteer Service Award). RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't help with notability. It's local coverage because he retired to New York. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:10, 28 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 Dow Jones Industrial Average. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DJX[edit]

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

DJX was originally created as a redirect to Dow Jones Industrial Average in 2011 but in 2016 the redirect was removed and an article was created for the rapper DJX which does not pass WP:GNG.[13] When this was originally created this seems to be WP:COI as the editor was DJXOmega. The article has been reverted back to the redirect 3 times in 2016. [14][15][16] Then was recreated again in February this year when it was reverted again. [17] The article was recently recreated again this month and I restored the original redirect [18] and was reverted by IP. [19]

I'm proposing either the redirect be reinstated and the page be protected to prevent the article being recreated without going through WP:AfC or delete the page entirely and WP:SALT it from being recreated. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 06:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstate redirect and semi-protect - Based on the page history, multiple people have tried to revert the stub away and every time a single-edit account or IP reverts it back. A Google for "DJX" returns millions of references to the stock index, while a search for "DJX rapper" returns only a few sparsely viewed Soundcloud pages and YouTube videos. Nothing even resembling reliable sources. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 07:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Salt back to redirect to Dow Jones Industrial Average If our Soundcloud friend ever gets fame, DJX (rapper) and a hatnote on the DJIA page will take care of both issues very nicely. For now, this is a WP:RESUME WP:COI that has no sources and no WP:N with it, and they should stop trying to force their way here through page hijacking. Nate • (chatter) 08:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Salt back to redirect to Dow Jones Industrial Average. Non-notable rapper as of now... If notability is established in the future, DJX (rapper) is a valid page. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dow Jones Industrial Average, then protect the redirect. Even if this rapper becomes notable, the DJIA would still most likely be the primary usage of this, and a hatnote to a DJX (rapper) article would suffice. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dow Jones Industrial Average - Hi, I agree that the page should be put as DJX (Rapper) as notability for this artist after further research has shown that they are very much capable of having a wiki page (assuming credible sources are cited) I do not think the user realizes what they are doing by redirecting, (because the average American does not associate "DJX" with the Stock market immediately.) That being said I will create a page under DJX (Rapper) in order to post this entry and delete the old in order to stop any interference with the Dow Jones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.164.109.160 (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Part of the issue here, though, is that DJX the rapper doesn't come anywhere near to passing our notability guidelines. Beyond his own Soundcloud and YouTube accounts, I can't find any coverage of him from outside sources, which is required to have a Wikipedia article. While the DJX acronym for the Dow Jones Industrial Average arguably isn't well known by the average person, there's plenty of sources showing its common usage by people in the financial industry. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 04:11, 26 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parama Credit Union[edit]

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

Article about a credit union, referenced exclusively to its own self-published annual report rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about it in media. As for the notability claim of being "the largest Lithuanian credit union in the world", the idea that a Lithuanian diaspora credit union in Canada could claim that title, when there are at least 67 credit unions in Lithuania according to the national bank of Lithuania, is a bit of an eyebrow-raiser at best -- and even if we adjusted the claim to "largest Lithuanian diaspora credit union in the world outside Lithuania", it's still not supported even by the existing primary source, let alone the reliable sources that would have to independently reverify the truth of the statement before it would constitute a notability claim. Basically, nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the topic from having to have much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Two new sources have been added to the article since this discussion was initiated, but one is still a primary source directory profile on the website of a neighbourhood business improvement association it's directly affiliated with, and the other is a glancing namecheck of its existence in a newspaper article that isn't about it — which means neither of them are bolstering the case for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find evidence of notability. Vanamonde (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Few mentions in passing, fails WP:NORG. It exists and that's about it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of significant coverage, does not pass WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:26, 28 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. Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Libcom[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The page was nominated for AfD back in 2005 [20]. Not sure what happened to it but I'm nominating again for lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first two citations and first external link are simply to the site itself, the Media Bias/Fact check citation is from a website that solely analyzes site bias without taking into account anything else (and it's only one site, and there aren't any other significant mentions in reliable sources), the Daily Beast article does not focus on the site and is just a brief reference, and the second external link, to the site's Facebook page, does not count for notability either. A Google search shows no other mentions in reliable sources. 24.5.8.227 (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I'm the creator of this page. I argue in favor of preserving this article on the following points:
- Libcom. org is a highly popular website with above average daily views, and a large amount of registered users.
- Libcom has been cited by the popular online news source The Daily Beast
- Libcom.org represents a ideological position that has been underrepresented within wikipedia articles, that of Anarchism
- Libcom.org has been expanded its audience outreach and is likely to quickly gain in popularity and visibility in the near future.
- There near identical articles on the same subject in non-English language wikis, most specifically Spanish.
- Libcom has received a review from popular media fact checking website
- Libcom is a significant source of far-left film, literary, and political criticism, making it an asset for discussion of left wing topics.
- Numerous wiki articles link to The Libcom website — Preceding unsigned comment added by S1d6arrett23 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The key here is reliable sources. Currently, there just don't seem to be enough of them to have a useful Wikipedia article; simply being popular doesn't help because if there aren't enough reliable sources, what will be cited to properly support the claims in this article? To deal with your other points:
  - The Daily Beast is a reliable source, but the article is not about Libcom itself and is only a brief mention. Not much else can be found in other areas.
  - The ideological position is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, nor a place for promoting any viewpoints.
  - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Your personal prediction may not be correct. If this does become more visible in the future and more reliable sources talk about it, an article can be created then.
  - Its presence in other wikis does not necessarily mean it should be here, as different projects have different standards. I noticed that the Spanish and Czech versions don't have many reliable sources (Spanish only has the site itself as an external link, the Czech version only mentions alexa.com).
  - The Media Matters website reviews websites without regard to importance. Even if we count it, we only have one source and another brief mention, which may not be enough for an article.
  - Whether this is used as a source in Wikipedia is different from whether it should have an article in Wikipedia. The former can occur without the latter. Not to mention that the obvious political bias may make it a problematic source.
  - 24.5.8.227 (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - Some extra stuff I just noticed: While I noticed some more sources have been added, they still may not establish notability. The Brooklyn Rail article was partially written by Libcom itself, arguably making it a primary source. The journal articles are not about Libcom and merely use files hosted on Libcom as a citation. Notability is not inherited, and it would be unfeasible to have an article for every single source that has been cited in a journal. Also, notice that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libcom.org (2nd nomination) was closed as delete. It appears that Libcom.org has been deleted as a Wikipedia article, but Libcom is still around, despite both of those articles being about the same thing. Frankly, this should perhaps be speedy deleted per G4 as a recreation of deleted material that doesn't address the reasons for deletion (not enough coverage in reliable sources). 24.5.8.227 (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your counter-points to my defense of this article, but I continue to hold the position that this article should be maintained in present form because Libcom is a significant source of information from a left-wing perspective and its notability within the left wing community justifies its relevance as a subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S1d6arrett23 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @S1d6arrett23: As I've said before, none of this has to do with whether Libcom can be cited in Wikipedia. Even if the article is deleted, Libcom can still be used as a source (if the source guidelines are followed, of course). As for notability within the left-wing community, while it might be popular, there still may not be enough reliable sources; a lot of the websites I've found discussing Libcom are things such as blogs and forums, or articles posted by the site itself, which generally aren't reliable. Or there are brief mentions or citations, such as the newly added sources, which don't give enough information to establish notability or write an article. We need to make sure that for every article, the information is as reliable as possible for the reader. 24.5.8.227 (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant, in-depth coverage. Neutrality^talk 23:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of significant coverage that deal with Libcom itself; currently fails WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:32, 28 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaka (film)[edit]

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

Upcoming movie that does not pass WP:NFF. 1l2l3k (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Principal photography has begun, so it does actually pass NFF. JustaFilmFan (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No, actually beginning photography doesn't make them notable. Read the last paragraph of NFF ("Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines."). What case can you make about the production being notable? --1l2l3k (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, how is this film 'not noteworthy'?! That's ridiculous. The film is currently in production, photography is well underway and it's an upcoming release. Stating that it isn't noteworthy is simply an opinion. The page needs to STAY.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:26, 11 November 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?} 14:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On top of passing WP:TOOSOON for an unreleased film, 1l2l3k makes the clear point citing WP:NFF (Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines) Bkissin (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Principal photography has begun, but more saliently in this case production itself is notable (independent coverage from multiple WP:RS) (e.g. The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, Variety). Cindlevet (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NFF since principle photography has begun and the sources included are reliable. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 08:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Can you please state how does it exactly pass WP:NFF?--1l2l3k (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @1l2l3k: Dissecting NFF, there's basically two main points:

1. Until a film has commenced principal photography, it is not notable enough to get its own article. Reliable sources must be used to confirm this.

2. Once a film has commenced principal photography, but before it has been released, an article should only be made if the production itself passes WP:GNG.

Point 1 is irrelevant since the film has already begun principal photography. We're then left with point 2: does the production itself pass WP:GNG? Well, we have four sources from three news outlets discussing aspects of it, namely due to the fact that it is produced and written by the Russo brothers and stars Chris Hemsworth, who are all big names in cinema at the moment due to being the writers and a star, respectively, of Avengers: Infinity War, the clear biggest movie of 2018 and the fourth highest grossing film of all time as of writing. Their involvement leads to coverage, coverage leads to sourcing, sourcing leads to notability. Thus it passes WP:NFF, at least in my interpretation. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 05:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the film has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and therefore passes WP:GNG and WP:NFILM, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 16:42, 24 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bram Inscore[edit]

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

Subject has collaborated with several different notable musicians, but there's no coverage of the subject beyond mere-mention. Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG. Some of the songs that the subject has worked on have charted, but given that the subject is not the primary artist (and is not even mentioned on the chart), I don't believe this counts for much. Previously nominated to PROD, dePROD by initial editor who provided additional sources that were just more mere-mentions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Doesn't inclusion of his song, "Youth", into the Billboard Hot 100, satisfy WP:MUSICBIO#2? --1l2l3k (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MUSICBIO mentions that it's a guideline for musicians or ensembles–that doesn't appear to include songwriters or producers. Going by Billboard, the song is Troye Sivan's, not Inscore's. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep To be honest, I’m conflicted. I want to say Keep because at the very least he’s won a major award and has a Billboard appearance. But I’m staunch about deleting articles that rely on mere mentions no matter how reliable the source is. I lean keep though.Trillfendi (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did the subject win the award though? Assuming we're talking about the ARIA award mentioned in the article, ARIA appears to have only given the award to the main artist, Troye Sivan. The sources as given in the article actually don't even establish that the subject worked on the song that won the award, merely that they contributed to the album (alongside several other artists that are named). While there's likely liner notes establishing that Inscore did specifically work on that song somewhere, I think it's possibly a stretch to claim that the subject has won that award. Ultimately this is splitting hairs a bit, but I think it underscores why it's so important for article subjects to actually have in-depth coverage available, because otherwise we're basically just doing original research to figure out whether they deserve credit for the award or not. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wording of the article made it seem as if he did, upon further review. But I don’t know if ARIA works like the Grammys where everybody who worked on the song gets the award. So yeah the article is really hanging by a thread. He’s done notable work but is he notable? That is the question.Trillfendi (talk) 06:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:20, 6 November 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?} 15:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of hair splitting with the arguments in prior listings regarding being part of a team for an award winning song. Bottom line, though, the sources are all about about someone else. This subject is attempting to claim notability by association. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:46, 28 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) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

San Antonio mayoral election, 2019[edit]

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

Notability not yet met, insufficient information to warrant a stand-alone article, neither of the two "potential" candidates have officially announced their candidacy. WP:TOOSOON applies. SanAnMan (talk) 13:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely delete Trillfendi (talk) 13:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I get it. I created the page largely to anticipate significant movement in this election in the coming months. The background of the race suggests that it will become a contentious race quickly, and I wanted to have a landing page here for when that happens. I would argue that as the race picks up in the coming weeks following the midterm elections today, it will be good to have a page already created and ready for updates. It might feel too early right now, but that will change in the coming weeks as the race heats up. I could expand and create a background page if that would be helpful, as there is significant background for each of the candidates as it relates to their candidacies. Avidohioan (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Avidohioan: I appreciate your contributions, but again, no one has actually officially announced a candidacy yet. You're assuming a lot of things here that might happen eventually, but we don't know yet. See WP:NOTCRYSTAL about assuming things that might happen. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @SanAnMan: Fair enough. I'll copy over what I have onto a separate document and can loop back around later. - Avidohioan (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Don't see the problem here. Notable election that is scheduled. Some information could be added about the background and electoral system to expand it, plus any opinion polls carried out. Number 5 7 11:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have also listed the election date in the article as uncited, I am unable to confirm anywhere that this date is the actual election date. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:CRYSTALBALL specifically notes that speculation and discussion around certain events that are almost certain to happen (such as elections and sporting events), as long as the event is in the short-term, are allowed articles. This fits neatly into that; although there's not all that much now, there will certainly be more polling and announcements as we get closer to the election date, and there's not much reason to delete and then recreate the article between now and then. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 08:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I feel like it's not notable, but depending upon how contentious the race is, it could be revisited at a later date. Skirts89 (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The seventh largest city in the United States is having an election for its top executive position in about six months. This is notable for that reason alone, even if only one person ran. Avidohioan (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a backup option to Draftify if not retained. As noted above, this is an event that is almost certain to occur, and published pre-discussion is not crystal-balling. The election is only six months away. It is more immediate than published pre-discussion of November 2019 and November 2020 elections. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to author User:Avidohioan - As in other elections, you can't vote twice. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given relatively near time horizon there is reliable sourcing that can be added to this page about an ongoing event. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:59, 24 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Green Our Vaccines[edit]

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

A single rally is not worth having an article on unless something particularly notable happened at or because of the rally, which does not appear to be the case here Tornado chaser (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable rally that does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a run of the mill rally by some celebrity doofuses. Doesn't meet WP:NEVENT. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Possibly add a brief mention to the organizer's articles, but this doesn't come close to passing WP:NEVENT. All the sources available are just WP:ROUTINE coverage combined with the standard boilerplate "vaccines don't cause autism" message that newsorgs include every time someone does something like this. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 08:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wanderers (band)[edit]

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

Article about a band, not reliably sourced as meeting any notability criterion. This shoots for NMUSIC #6, "two or more independently notable members", but it misses: it had one independently notable member, and a bunch of members who were previously associated with a notable band but did not establish any independent notability for the purposes of getting their own standalone biographies as individuals. And other than that, they accomplished nothing else significant enough to pass any other NMUSIC criterion at all -- and the only "references" here are an unreliable website about a person who was the conceptual subject of their sole album, and the album's own liner notes. At best they warrant a short mention in the article about Stiv Bators, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough, or referenced well enough, for them to get their own standalone article as a separate topic from Bators himself. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. allmusic bio [21]. Reviewed in Sounds, allmusic [22], Record Mirror and Trouser Press. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies notability guidelines easily (there's also coverage in Goldmine, The Encyclopedia of Popular Music, and Phoenix New Times), but apart from that it was basically Sham 69 with Jimmy Pursey replaced by Stiv Bators, so deletion is simply a non-starter. --Michig (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The NMUSIC criterion that bases notability on the identities of the members requires two or more members who are independently notable as individuals — NMUSIC #6 doesn't count how many members were in a more notable band before this one, it counts how many members have their own standalone articles as individuals separate from any band they were or weren't in. So no, deletion is not "simply" a non-starter just because it was "basically Sham 69 with Jimmy Pursey replaced by Stiv Bators" — Bators is the only person here who counts toward NMUSIC #6 at all, and one person isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NMUSIC is a rule of thumb to provide guidance on when a band is likely to merit an article, not a rule to be slavishly followed. A band comprising all of Sham 69 minus their singer plus another notable singer is clearly worth covering somewhere in the encyclopedia, and would merit inclusion in both the article on Sham 69 and the article on Stiv Bators, or ideally in a separate article to prevent duplicating the information in two articles. Even if this subject failed to meet the relevant notability guidelines (which it doesn't), there are alternatives to deletion here which, should make deletion a non-starter. --Michig (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Information about Dave Parsons (who has a standalone Wikipedia page about his life and career, in which it mentions his participation in The Wanderers) has been added. Additionally, thanks to Michig there is going to be inclusion of the links that were posted to this talk page in the original article, so as to prevent deletion of this page. -CarmenRRida (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Out-reazon[edit]

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

Advertorialized article about a band, not reliably sourced as meeting any WP:NMUSIC criterion. Other than a single deadlink to a WordPress site that features no content at all anymore except for a single page inviting people to visit its social networking profiles, the only other "sourcing" present here at all is a linkfarm of the band's own self-published web presence on social networking and streaming sites -- and the article has been flagged as needing better references for almost five years without ever having any better references added at all. And further, the creator's username corresponds very closely to the name of a band member, so this was also a conflict of interest. Nothing stated in this article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the band from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing found that would indicate notability. --Michig (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: promotional article created by the band's leader immediately following the release of their debut album. No reliable sources found, the album was crowdfunded and released on a local independent record label (I suspect it may be the band's own label), no mention of the band in the archives of the major Panamanian newspapers. In 16 years of existence they have only produced one EP and one album, and the album's launch party was held in a bar with a capacity of just 225 people. The band may be well known on Panama's underground punk rock scene, but they don't appear to have any notability outside of that. Richard3120 (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Interviews are primary sources so the delete argument is the policy based one. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B.l.o.w.[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable band. Found absolutely no coverage in reliable sources upon a Google search. They made no charts or won any awards either. Naturally, I'm also nominating these for deletion:

Man and Goat Alike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Legboot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pigs (b.l.o.w. album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Legalise It (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The only source used on all of these is [shroomin.co.uk a fansite dedicated to the band]. N Ø 07:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So far, no significant news coverage about the subject, and the band seem to have failed WP:MUSICBIO. However, since it's an old band, they probably might have some sort of local news coverage, hence I leave this to other editors for further investigations.

Is Nutin 10:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soltesh (talk • contribs)

Comment, I employed some of my clicking skills, and ended up on https://david9lunas.co.uk/bio/, which notes "B.L.O.W sold well with their album “Pigs” with David as front man in the summer of 1995 that culminating in an MTV interview and acoustic performance that was reviewed favorably by London’s major music magazine, Kerrang amongst others." An MTV interview and a review in "amongst others" Kerrang sounds promising. I'll leave further sleuthing for dates and back issues, and then trawling through back issues of other music magazines of the same dates to others -- a facebook message to David Lunas on his artist page could maybe help here, it's quite possible he has stuff in personal archives. If there is sufficient notability here to warrant an article, merging all verifiable material to one article and redirecting the others will probably be a good idea. 2001:1C04:1903:3900:F1E6:779D:147C:C652 (talk) 11:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I couldn't resist browsing around a bit more. There is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3oCKPhmvKM which may turn up further leads -- the album being discussed is probably what ended up going being pigs, and the event itself is the event that likely was the end of the band -- Richardson left b.l.o.w. to join Skunk Anansie 2 months after this video, where he first met them. Stoosh would be recorded and released in May 1996, and become one of the more recognizable rock sounds of the mid 90's. The video indicates that the upcoming album was almost finished -- presumably with Richardson, who met with Skunk Anansie on this very same night. The b.l.o.w. album as it would be eventually released -- after the smash success of Stoosh -- would only have a single writing credit of Richardson. The speculative juicy narrative writes itself. http://www.shroomin.co.uk/discography/discog-pigs.php shows a small kerrang review of pigs, which, while rather positive about the album, notes the album has been "too long coming" and "the buzz [around the band] now subsided". The claim that there *was* a buzz might mean there is more to be found in terms of sources. 2001:1C04:1903:3900:F1E6:779D:147C:C652 (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts to save the band article but unless coverage is found in reliable, secondary sources then notability is not established. The band’s own website saying one of their albums sold well does not prove notability.—N Ø 12:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular interest in "saving" the article other than the interest of Wikipedia. The own website(s) do nothing to establish notability -- I didn't intend to give the impression I believed otherwise, and I'm a bit surprised you came to that conclusion from what I posted. The secondary sources mentioned on the own website and fan site might. The mentioned MTV interview, which while likely a primary source --which should be a different interview than the one I linked earlier -- and isn't great for verifiability, does to some extent show notability. The favourable review in Kerrang "among others" might -- maybe also depending on what the mentioned others are, and the depth of their coverage. I'm not particularly inclined to go check what exists out there, but a prudent deletion nomination should do some effort to track these sources down, and I do believe that I've shown with a quick search and just looking what the leads we have link to show reliable sources than what is now used on Wikipedia. I would suggest at least tracking down the MTV interview, and the Kerrang reviews, maybe also the issues that distributed the earlier EPs. 2001:1C04:1903:3900:F1E6:779D:147C:C652 (talk) 13:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing -- that Bruce Dickenson MTV interview from 1995 above? Wrong Bruce Dickinson, or so it appears. Apparently there were two Bruce Dickinsons were at that event. There goes my juicy narrative (though it doesn't matter much for the core of the argument, that there is an MTV interview and Kerrang reviews out there) 2001:1C04:1903:3900:F1E6:779D:147C:C652 (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no suggestion that there was any other Bruce Dickinson at the awards other than the Iron Maiden singer – he mentions Maiden more than once during the interview, so I'm not sure why you assumed it was the member of B.l.o.w. ~~Tracking down an MTV interview from more than two decades ago is going to be almost impossible if it isn't on YouTube.~~ Aha, the MTV interview must be this one [23] – it's not particularly useful, only one question in the four-minute interview actually provides any info about the band, rather than Little Angels, their description of their sound, or self-financed record label. As far as I know there are no online archives of Kerrang! magazine going back that far, so we would need to find someone who bought the issues back in 1995/1996 and has kept their collection. Richard3120 (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have good reason to believe that this band received significant coverage in reliable sources (for the subject of music) independent to the subject of the piece - Kerrang and MTV. We don't have to have those references (that's a page-quality issue, not a deletion one) just know that they exist per WP:NRV. PS - Redirect all other pages to the band page since they're clearly not notable independent of the band. FOARP (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that argument is, how do you cite those sources? At the moment we literally can't say anything more than "1. MTV interview. 2. Kerrang! live review." We have no dates, no authors, no links, no issue number, nothing. And we don't know if the coverage is significant or not – the live acoustic review could be a passing mention as a support act, for all we know. Richard3120 (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: OK, so the MTV interview could be expanded to "Interview, MTV Headbangers Ball, 1994" Richard3120 (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a start, no? Ditto the Kerrang! review. Improving the citations is a page quality issue for which there is no WP:Deadline FOARP (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a start, but it also appears to be an end as well, especially as the MTV interview amounts to very little. And unless we can really improve the sourcing, it's likely to be brought to AfD again in the future, so in practice there IS a deadline for improving the article before it gets deleted. Richard3120 (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add evidence of notability or delete SleepForever talk November 2018, 18:29 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems non-notable to me. An MTV interview is not enough to warrant notability. Skirts89 (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Roy Pipe Band and Highland Dancers[edit]

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

Non-notable pipe band. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete For such a long-lived group, they don't seem to have generated much reliable source coverage that I can find. The best I was able to come up with was this article about the group celebrating their 60th year. The one reference isn't enough to demonstrate notability, but perhaps there are older, non-online sources available. PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems obviously self-promotional to me. Skirts89 (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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