Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 November	24 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samahang Kapatid[edit]

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

All available references (including those in the article, Google, Highbeam, and Newspapers.com) are trivial mentions, local performance listings of the "X will perform at Y community thing" variety, or dead unreliable blogs. Both previous AfDs were closed as no consensus over 8 years ago. Time for this to go. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

L235 was kind enough to check Lexis, EBCO, and ProQuest for me and also found nothing substantive. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its a dance troupe. As dance troupes go it's got quite a lot of coverage. We need to consider notability in context. Rathfelder (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it actually doesn't have "quite a lot of coverage". All of the sources in the article, and that I found in my search, are either unreliable blog-type publications, trivial name-drops, or local performance listings, none of which constitute the kind of coverage that demonstrates notability. Do you have any additional in-depth reliable sources that would actually demonstrate notability? If so, you should link them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I have added a couple of references, one of which is an article written after a performance by the dance group, and the other a council award for Community Spirit. More than trivial, but only one in-depth. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those references are just as useless as the ones that were in the article when I AfD'd it. They're of exactly the same stripe. BakitWhy is hardly in-depth, the portion that's about them is three sentences stating that they performed. If that's the most in-depth thing anyone can find about them, they're clearly not notable enough for an article. Second, an award for Community Spirit from the city council of the village of Downers Grove, Illinois is hardly an indication of notability. It's cutesy local-recognition stuff, it means nothing. Finally, the reference from The Des Moines Register via Newspapers.com is literally a trivial name-drop of exactly the kind I called out in my nomination. None of these sources indicate any kind of notability, not even close. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to pass GNG. I can't find anything except mentions in passing or community bulletin-type announcements, which are certainly not "in-depth". Brad v 17:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Bradv's and nom's rationales. --1l2l3k (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 November 23
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:Reference bombed with mentions and sources with no mentions. A multitude of mentions does not substitute for two independent secondary sources that comment in depth on the subject. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough significant coverage for either WP:GNG or the heightened coverage we demand from WP:NORG. SportingFlyer talk 07:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, Does not have reliable coverage. Alex-h (talk) 09:47, 29 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) 17:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOSPlan[edit]

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

I can find no independent sources for this organisation, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Adding Find source below for the full name. AllyD (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: My searches are not finding better than the usual social media entries and passing mention in media about a graduating student who was involved in NOSPlan and reporting a guest speech. Not enough WP:RS coverage for WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searches don't yield any notable sources covering the subject apart from social media platforms. MT Train^Talk 17:24, 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emanci Language Institute[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:ORG , does not appear notable. A couple of press refs which are launch PR; nothing else found. Mccapra (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The 2009 article from "The Hindu" which is offered as a reference is no more than a passing quotation from a company associate, one among several quoted in an article about language courses, and does not meet the WP:NCORP requirements. The company is still offering language training courses (link) but I do not see the coverage needed for an article here. AllyD (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Unikrn. Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UnikoinGold[edit]

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

Cryptocurrency token that's not independently notable from it's company, Unikrn. I don't think the details that show this isn't special compared to any other ICO are worth merging. Delete then redirect at best. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Unikrn. W C M_email 22:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's two bits of RS coverage that provide material to merge and redirect - David Gerard (talk) 13:14, 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Markland Molson[edit]

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

Non-notable Titanic passenger; no significant coverage outside of this single event. –dlthewave ☎ 22:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. W C M_email 22:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – prominent Canadian, part of the Molson family, former mayor of Dorval. Plenty more sources available to improve this, including [1] [2]. Brad v 22:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Everything Bradv said. Atchom (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm going to admit that as this article stands right now, it's a little too dependent on Titanic-related sourcing and not nearly enough on properly sourcing his preexisting notability in politics — but sources for that other, stronger notability claim do exist. Although Bradv's sources aren't actually support for notability like he thinks (corporate press releases and the self-published websites of yacht clubs don't assist in demonstrating notability at all!), I did find significant reliable source coverage in archives of both The Globe and Mail and the Montreal Gazette. Nominator is correct, to be fair, that dying in the sinking of the Titanic is not in and of itself a notability-maker — the clincher here is that he was already notable for other reasons in life, not the Titanic per se. The sole issue here is that people didn't put in the work needed to properly show his preexisting notability, not that he didn't actually have any. What our sources have to be is media, not necessarily "readable on the web" — archival media coverage you have to dig into databases to find still counts, and the sources do not necessarily have to Google easily. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, yes, I'm aware those links I posted aren't reliable, but nevertheless they can be used to improve the article. There are also several books about the Molson family, like [3], [4], [5], [6], that can definitely be used to establish notability. Brad v 19:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat's sourcing which indicates pre-existing notability. ——SerialNumber54129 13:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep Kudos to Bradv for sourcing this one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't concentrate on Titanic, as a member of Molson family and a former mayor is notable. Alex-h (talk) 10:00, 29 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) 17:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Fynney[edit]

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

Non-notable passenger of the Titanic; no significant coverage outside of this single event. –dlthewave ☎ 21:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. W C M_email 22:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dont see anything in the article that makes him noteworthy for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunate victim of the Titanic sinking who fails to meet WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Oneevent, no indication of any notability whatsoever apart from it; the implication that the person's sexual orientation might imply some notability is peculiarly unencyclopaedic. If the article is eventually kept, it will have to be completely rewritten from scratch as part of an open CCI (and yes, it does contain copyright violations). Assuming it is deleted, no objection to subsequent creation of a redirect to Passengers of the RMS Titanic. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E. ——SerialNumber54129 13:24, 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 merge to Joseph Philippe Lemercier Laroche. Randykitty (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Laroche[edit]

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

Article was previously merged with Joseph Philippe Lemercier Laroche in 2012, then re-created without discussion in 2015. This article is now an unnecessary duplicate. –dlthewave ☎ 21:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Joseph Philippe Lemercier Laroche, with the suggestion that article is renamed the Laroche family. I don't believe individual family members are notable in their own right. W C M_email 22:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per User:Wee Curry Monster. Piratesswoop (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and move to collective name per WCM. ——SerialNumber54129 13:25, 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) 17:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Navratil[edit]

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

Non-notable Titanic passenger. No significant RS coverage beyond this event. –dlthewave ☎ 21:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. W C M_email 22:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunate victim of the sinking of the Titanic who fails to meet WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest redirect to Passengers of the RMS Titanic. Deb (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cant see anything in the article that supports them being noteworthy enough for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable about this person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 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 redirect to Kik Messenger. Anything worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kin (Token)[edit]

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

Cryptocurrency token that's not independently notable from it's company, Kik Messenger. There's more content that should be removed than what could possibly be worth merging like "There was much enthusiasm behind Kin prior to the token distribution event (TDE), with cryptocurrency fans seeing the move as legitimising the controversial industry." and the unsourced "Digital Economy" section talking about their goals that might not ever be met. Article just makes it seem more important than it ever was. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - the token's launch got a pile of RS coverage, but I'm persuaded by the argument that this belongs in the parent article. I just removed the unsourced and primary-sourced slabs of text - what remains would make a perfectly good section for the parent - David Gerard (talk) 13:13, 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vox (Stewart and Riddell novel)[edit]

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

Unreferenced article with no third-party coverage. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other similiar AFD:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The book meets WP:NBOOK criterion 1 since it has received at least three reviews (which I added to the article). Fearstreetsaga (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, in addition to reviews in the article Vox has also been reviewed by The Horn Book - "Though it starts slowly and speeds too quickly through the finish, the story is vivid, imaginative, and well plotted.", Voice of Youth Advocates - "Vox, the sixth episode of The Edge Chronicles, concentrates on the decaying Undertown. ... episodeFull of surprises, the series will again satisfy its readers with intricate plot lines, imaginatively created creatures and landscapes, and its incredible illustrations.", Reading Time - listed here, and School Librarian - "listed here". Coolabahapple (talk) 05:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Coolabahapple, all the reviews at https://kcls.bibliocommons.com/item/show/532920082 seem to be personal ones and thus could be dismissed as trivials under WP:Nbook. http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/book-reviews/16194472/vox-edge-chronicles has no reviews whatsoever and is just a catalog of the book.

http://lookingglassreview.com/books/the-edge-chronicles-vox/ also seem like a trivial review from a personal site. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyw7: KCLS and WCCLS are library catalogs that are reproducing the Booklist and VOYA reviews, which would normally be behind paywalls, in full. The WCCLS URL isn't stable but if you search the catalog the review does indeed appear there. I can tell you through my own database access, which reproduces the pages from Booklist, a RS review journal, that the KCLS reproduction is faithful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/book-reviews/11891614/lirael-harry-potter-order-phoenix-vox-book links to a Harry Potter book? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Hmm the reviews at https://wccls.bibliocommons.com/item/show/892661143 does seem to be on the short side and I personally don't think it meets the definition but others might disagree. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi Tyw7, EBSCO provides, amongst other things, a listing service of book reviews that may be available from a reader's local library (via a subscription service), so, for example, opening up the 1st ebsco source states that there is a review of Vox in Reading Time of February 2005. Reading Time is the journal of the Children's Book Council of Australia, the peak australian body of children's literature in that country. the other ebsco listing that i mentioned above states that there is a Vox review in the winter 2003 edition of School Librarian, the quarterly publication of the UK's School Library Association. to the suggestion that the reviews may be too short, i am reminded of the various forms of poetry and that although Haiku is extremely short, the poet is still able to get their message across:)) ps.agree with you about lookingglassreviews, hence why i didnt mention it. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for passing NBOOK as noted by Fearstreet and Coolabahapple. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on reviews found by Fearstreetsaga and Coolabahapple. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:06, 30 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) 17:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our Freedom[edit]

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

Contrary to the note of the editor who accepted this at AfC, I cannot see an indication that this sculpture is notable and/or has received substantial coverage. There's one purported article in what appears to be the local newspaper, which I can't find to check. It's also mentioned in one dissertation by a student of the artist, which I guess must be regarded as not indepedent [7]. That does not seem to satisfy WP:GNG. (As an aside, do we have a special guideline for public artworks? Maybe I'm missing something here.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep large public artwork on major street in a major city. Every other similar article I've ever seen has not been a problem to keep. You may need to search in another language for sources. The page has been live for barely a couple hours so hardly has had time to be found and improved by knowledgable editors. There is nothing promotional about this topic and no harm in having the page for anyone to find who wants to understand the symbolism of the artwork they see on the street. Legacypac (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is guideline for buildings and objects see Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Buildings and objects. I'm not convinced this meets the standard for notability but not suggesting either way as I lack the language skills to look for sources. But then as it hasn't been in article space for long, suggest there is time for improvement. W C M_email 22:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing found in search. The second and third sources in the article are about the neighbouring reservoir, not the article subject. GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely fails WP:GNG, at least in English-language sources, including those in the article. SportingFlyer talk 07:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same as above, nothing that proves article for GNG. Alex-h (talk) 11:53, 29 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 Danny Phantom. Any content worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Phantom (character)[edit]

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

Character of an animated television series, this article has never undergone an AfD. Keeps going from an article to a redirect. I don't see GNG satisfied. The main source is the article in wiki of the series itself. 1l2l3k (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually there has been an applicable AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Phantom (character)), which, although full of socks and WP:ILIKEIT, ended as Keep. I'm not a fan either of these obsessive fanwankery articles based entirely on primary sources; but if the case can be made for one character of the cast, then presumably for the main character. Hopefully all the others will stay put in the list. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Full of fans craft without secondary reliable source. Matthew hk (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, then protect the redirect to prevent recreation. As Matthew hk points out, simply fan craft based on primary sourcing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:22, 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 procedural close. The article is now correctly nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emanci Language Institute. (non-admin closure) Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000🎄 (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Emanci Language Institute[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:ORG , does not appear notable. A couple of press refs which are launch PR; nothing else found. Mccapra (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Nominated by accident when I meant to nominate the main article, not the talk page. Mccapra (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator @Mccapra: This is a nomination for a talk page. Did you mean to nominate the related article? If not, talk page deletion is handled at MfD (see the big red warning at the top of the nominated page). Bakazaka (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

apologies I meant to nominate the article itself.Mccapra (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok I’ve now nominated the main article. What should I do with this mistaken talk page nomination? Mccapra (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the instructions at WP:WDAFD. Bakazaka (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks. Mccapra (talk) 04:11, 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 redirect to Patrick Collison. As far as I can see, there is not much content here that can be merged, but in any case, that content is still available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Croma (programming language)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with no independent reliable sources. This article was previously deleted at Croma as an expired prod. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000🎄 (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Patrick Collison, lacks notability in its own right but maybe some of the content is useful there. W C M_email 22:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, a short-lived one-man hobby project without any notability. -- Oisguad (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge non-notable unreferenced content, but references likely exist, and it should be included in the creator's page. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 01:37, 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hank[edit]

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

Fails the general notability guidelines and WP:CREATIVE. Almost no mention in reliable, secondary sources, and those few mentions appear to be fleeting at best. -- irn (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a before search found nothing that points to him meeting the notability criteria. --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:58, 30 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) Natg 19 (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hayleys[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. Substantial coverage not found. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000🎄 (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep the group has 9 companies listed on the national stock exchange and is a major business in Sri Lanka. See WP:LISTED Legacypac (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and improve. It's not internationally famous but it seems to be a big deal in Sri Lanka. It's regularly covered in the Daily FT which is the only financial newspaper listed on List of newspapers in Sri Lanka. Search term "hayleys site:ft.lk" Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This seems to be the largest business conglomerate in Sri Lanka. We need to avoid bias against businesses with dominant positions in countries remote from the US and Europe. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In Sri Lanka it passes WP:NORG and even WP:SIGCOV if the sources that aren't in the article from searches are added to the article. JC7V (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I will vote keep because obviously the company is notable and one of the most recognized companies in Sri Lanka. It is passes WP:GNG PlotHelpful (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs cleanup but appears to pass wp:n. Szzuk (talk) 21:04, 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) 18:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Pandey[edit]

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

Non notable Student union media coordinator fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage Spiderone 13:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really wish I understood why Indian editors seem so unusually convinced that student government spokespeople are automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles — while articles about people at this level of prominence have occasionally been attempted in other countries too, it's only in India that there's a regular onslaught of them approaching epidemic proportions. But they're not automatically notable just for existing, and the references here aren't showing strong or convincing evidence that Pandey is a special case over and above most others. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass General Notability Guidelines. PlotHelpful (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Previously CSD'd under A7. This subject is non notable per searches and sources, and most likely non significant. JC7V (talk) 00:53, 30 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! 08:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 The New Saints F.C. season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS as the Welsh Premier League is not a "top, professional league" (most clubs are semi-professional). Prod removed by article creator with no explanation. Number 5 7 17:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I don't think that's the proper reading of WP:NSEASONS as it continues that those seasons almost always meet the notability requirements, meaning it needs to be analysed on WP:GNG grounds - and while this article is probably worthy of deleting as it stands, there's probably at least enough on the six games in the European qualifying rounds to pass WP:GNG per WP:NEXIST. SportingFlyer talk 23:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a proper reading of it; please see previous AfDs like this one where it is agreed that there is clear consensus that when applied to football, NSEASONS requires a league to be fully-professional. Also, there are already articles on the European competitions (and indeed all the competitions that the club plays in with the exception of the Welsh Cup, although that article is likely to appear given that we have them for the last ten seasons), so there's no reason for that information to be replicated here. Number 5 7 00:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it's not an exclusionary guideline but rather one that points to GNG. SportingFlyer talk 00:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although it fails WP:NSEASONS, we still need to look at WP:GNG, which it passes as SportingFlyer explained. Yes, NSEASONS requires a league to be fully professional, but if an article meets GNG, it should be kept regardless of any SNG. Smartyllama (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. Fails WP:GNG cos any sources will be WP:ROUTINE. Suggestions that the 6 European ties make the whole season notable are wrong. TNS lost 5-4 in the CL and benefited from the drop down to the EL rule, scraped past Lincoln before losing to Midtjylland. [[8]] saw deletion of a similar article with playing in the CL not enough to keep it.Dougal18 (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. No sources presented to show it meets GNG. Unsure why other editors (who, respectfully, should know better) are making the assumption it meets GNG without providing any actual sources... Giant Snowman 09:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS and there's no evidence this season is notable enough to meet WP:GNG. TNS have had considerably more notable seasons than this in recent history so I'm not sure why this one would deserve an article. Kosack (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST ("Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. – EmpressOtherstuff"). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point was why is this season actually notable. TNS play in these competitions every year so why do the sources go beyond routine for this particular season? Kosack (talk) 09:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the Welsh league is mostly semi-pro, TNS themselves are fully-pro and they have competed against other fully-pro clubs in supranational competitions (e.g. FC Midtjylland). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of which actually meets the notability criteria in WP:NSEASONS. Kosack (talk) 09:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing GNG. NSEASONS is not met either but this of course is just a help to see if it will because The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. Rather sick of seeing Wikipedia becoming just a mass of statistics pages for sports fans. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:NSEASON. Just another item for Wikipedia's rather long and getting longer by the day indiscriminate listings of information. -The Gnome (talk) 05:03, 1 December 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) 18:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roldan Sangcha-an[edit]

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

Does not meet Notability guidelines as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability. Also has been quite inactive after his UFC stint. Tbb 911 (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.PRehse (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and the only coverage is typical sports reporting so WP:GNG is also not met. Papaursa (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Dregni[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, whose only apparent claim of notability per WP:AUTHOR is that he and his work exist. Of the 12 footnotes here, six of them are to his books' own promotional profiles on the website of their own publisher, while another is his own faculty profile on the website of his own employer -- so none of these are independent sources for the purpose of establishing notability. And while the other five are media, there's one (City Pages) that just briefly namechecks his existence in the context of having been a member of a non-notable local bar band in the 1990s, and two dead links (Bristol Evening Post and Bloomberg) that are unretrievable even via the Wayback Machine to determine how much they ever actually did or didn't say about him, so none of those are helping to establish notability either.
I was able to recover the other two dead links (The Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star) via ProQuest, but The Globe and Mail also just gives him a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article about something other than him. So literally the only reference here that's actually doing anything at all in terms of establishing his notability is the Toronto Star — but if he can't claim something on the order of winning a noteworthy literary award, then it takes quite a bit more than just one notability-assisting source to get him over WP:GNG on "notable because media coverage exists" grounds. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, you old curmudgeon, you. I love you to death, man, for the energy you put into bringing inadequately-sourced bios to AfD. But ] WP:AUTHOR does not require winning "a noteworthy literary award" (although he did win a Fulbright Fellowship. We set standards for notability, and follow them. In this case WP:AUTHOR: "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that author required winning a noteworthy literary award per se. But what is true is that if an author has won a notable literary award, then one reliable source which properly verifies the award win is enough in and of itself to get the article kept and merely flagged for reference improvement, with deletion permanently off the table forever because passage of a hard notability criterion has been properly verified — whereas if the notability claim is merely that the author and his work exist, then it takes more than just one source to close the gap between existence and notability. That's what I said. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. But this writer has had reviews, profiles and INDEPTH coverage in media over many years, a good deal of which is now on the page (more can be added.) Your assertion that "only apparent claim of notability per WP:AUTHOR is that he and his work exist" is simply not valid.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. When I was just recently editing this page I tried to find something more than just what was here and all I could do was correct the bio's occupation information. I don't think that this meets notability requirements, and, if someone does want to recreate this article with additional sources that establish this notability, they can do so later through the process of drafting an article. He seems to primarily write popular non-fiction coffee-table style books. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 01:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very modest WP:HEYMANN upgrade, I added a coupe of articles about him to the page, expanded it a little, added a couple of book reviews to those already on the page and tagged the page for better citations. Note that his Norway book was funded by a Fulbright. What I did not do was add all of the book reviews that exist; some were already on the page. When an WP:AUTHOR gets this many book reviews,we KEEP the article per "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough book reviews (per EMG) to pass WP:AUTHOR. I think it's noteworthy that many of them are in wide-circulation newspapers rather than academic journals; those are harder to get and indicate a greater level of notability. But this level of reviewing even in academic journals would be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind to keep now that I see the Fulbright funded work and additional work as per WP:HEYMANN upgrade along the lines of WP:AUTHOR explained above. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 17:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:33, 23 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. Consensus is that this content is unsourced and inaccurate. Therefore removing it is fully consistent with wikipedia policy but there is a clear need for a sourced accurate article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC) Αdding after to clarify, this is essentially a TNT case.Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Militia and Yeomanry of the British Empire[edit]

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

This is a fake entry created from a FANDOM page as admitted by the user. Sammartinlai (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sammartinlai (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I created the FANDOM page, I'm just transferring it to Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by J-Man11 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, Fandom and wikipedia are different. Please read up what Wikipedia is about. Are you voting btw?Sammartinlai (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JMan-11, please read [[9]] before you create further articles.Sammartinlai (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No valid rationale for deletion offered. Previously being posted on Wikia is not grounds for deletion per se, and certainly does not mean it is fake. SpinningSpark 11:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The entry is a list of unsourced--one unreliable or questionable source--of units only for the author's sake, not for the role of Wikipedia. If you argue for wikia articles into wikipedia, then that should be made en masse. Sammartinlai (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use strawman arguments. Of course I am not proposing mass incorporation of Wikia pages. Are you now trying to argue the subject is not notable? SpinningSpark 12:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The user is just mass copying his FANDOM article over and yes you can see how it is not notable. Perhaps you could edit it if you think it should be kept? Show me how it is notable and worthy.Sammartinlai (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The book Citizen Soldiers and the British Empire, 1837–1902 is entirely about precisely this subject. The Irish Amateur Military Tradition in the British Army, 1854-1992 is entirely about the Irish component of this topic. The opening sentence of the book reads "The study of the auxiliary forces of the United Kingdom is an important one..." You really need to separate the issue of the notability of the topic and the origin of the article on FANDOM in your head. They are two separate issues. SpinningSpark 15:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't insult my head. The user who created the article admitted it was copy and paste from FANDOM. Why don't you fix the article since you have the book? Sammartinlai (talk) 09:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost completely unsourced. So fails WP:CITE and WP:RS. Dormskirk (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was invited to comment. My observations:

I think there is a place for this type of information on WP, and in fact much of this information is already included in the article List of units of the British Army Territorial Force 1908. For that reason I would suggest this article should be deleted or merged;
If this article is kept, its title should reflect that it is a list;
Based on a cursory scan, the article seems to be misleading/inaccurate, but not what I would characterise as fiction. I do agree it is poorly sourced, though I don't think that's a good reason in itself for deletion. There are good sources available; the above-mentioned article lists some in its bibliography. I would also add that the archive of regiments.org was accepted as reliable in Gloucestershire Regiment when it was promoted to FA. However, referencing only the index page instead of each individual entry in the list is not enough. I'm not sure that british-army-units1945on.co.uk can be considered a reliable source. If it is, then again, it's not enough just to reference an index page.
In terms of the article being misleading/inaccurate. Taking just the Gloucestershire entries as an example:

It's not clear that C (Royal Gloucestershire Hussars) Squadron, The Royal Wessex Yeomanry, is the modern day descendent of the former yeomanry regiment the Royal Gloucestershire Hussars.
The same issue exists with the Gloucestershire Volunteer Artillery which, according to the WP article on that unit, has a longer history of different unit names than is presented in this list. And Royal Foot Artillery? I think that should be Royal Field Artillery;
The Gloucestershire Regiment was neither militia nor yeomanry, but a regular army regiment, and therefore has no place at all in this list;
I never encountered the Royal North Gloucestershire Light Infantry in my research for Gloucestershire Regiment, only the Royal North Gloucestershire Militia;
The two rifle volunteer units listed were neither militia nor yeomanry, but part of the Volunteer Force, a completely separate organisation;
The article omits any mention of the third rifle volunteer battalion, raised in 1900. Factotem (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Gloucestershire Regiment wasn't a militia regiment, but it did have militia battalions after 1881, as did all regular infantry regiments. I assume that's what the author was getting at, which is why they've added the regular regiment to every county list. Yes, I agree that's fairly pointless without specifying the battalions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the page includes wrong information is purely a page quality issue, not a deletion issue. FOARP (talk) 08:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing on the page is a page quality issue and doesn't matter for AfD purposes. Whether or not the page began on Wikia also doesn't matter. What matters is whether sources showing "significant coverage" exist, and as can be seen above, they do. FOARP (talk) 08:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Superfluous addition to the better sourced List of units of the British Army Territorial Force 1908 as per above. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just a snapshot in time. This article has the potential to be expanded with descriptive prose. It's certainly a notable subject on which a great deal has been written. Notability should not be judged on the current poor state, but what the article could become. SpinningSpark 13:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FOARP - we can clean this article up, separately from the deletion debate. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FOARP and Buckshot06. - wolf 08:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The topic certainly seems notable. The current name is somewhat misleading - 1) it's a list, not an article, and 2) it says "Militia and Yeomanry of the British Empire", but does not currently include any militia outside England and the Channel Islands (and only half of England, at that). It would be more useful with dates, too, of when each militia was first raised and, if applicable, when any were disbanded or merged. So while a list and/or article on this topic could have a place in Wikipedia, and this version could be improved, if this is deleted, a new article or list could be written. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.. WP:V is mandatory. The only source is a self-published website (WP:SPS). This is unverifiable content. Sandstein 20:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additional to my post above, I'm curious to know if there are any sources that cover only the Militia and the Yeomanry, in the way this article's title suggests. I've seen a few that cover one or the other, and I've seen a few that cover auxiliary forces in general (of which the Militia and Yeomanry were just two of a number of amateur forces raised at various times in British and, before that, English, Scottish and Irish military history), but I'm not aware of any that are constrained to just these two institutions. If this article is retained, then as well the current poor state of sourcing, I think the scope of the article, and therefore the title, will need some attention. Factotem (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on many grounds: (A) The subject of the contested article is "militia and yeomanry," specifically in Great Britain. Yet nowhere do we learn anything about militia and yeomanry in Britain, e.g. the social context, the historical development, etc. (B) This is a list and nothing more than a list. As a list, it lacks encyclopaedic interest, though it could fit as a trimmed, hatted section into an article that would actually be about militia and yeomanry in Britain. (C) There are no significant references supporting the subject's independent notability. The term "amateur soldier" denotes something different than "yeoman" and "yeomanry;" a yeoman is a member of social class historically. Sources about, generally, amateur soldiers are not directly relevant. (D) Although, as we know, deletion is no replacement for improvement, in this case the only and most merciful way forward is to send the text back to draft land and await whatever improvements can be made to it, starting perhaps with its title, before it's acceptable as a Wikipedia article. -The Gnome (talk) 04:58, 1 December 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) 18:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarita Khurana[edit]

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

I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as required by WP:GNG and fails WP:CREATIVE. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added some content and refs and also done some copy-editing. The article still needs work, but for me she meets WP:GNG because of the number of independent sources (more than I would like are reviews or interviews, admittedly) and WP:ANYBIO because of the Albert Maysles New Documentary Director award. I agree she does not pass WP:CREATIVE. Tacyarg (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tacyarg: Can you please point out those sources that you think are independent of the subject? Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 05:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi there, they are all in the article. Most are reviews and interviews, but the Film India Global, the book Naming Jhumpa Lahiri and the Record-Journal are not. Tacyarg (talk) 07:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews aren't independent sources as required for establishing notability and most of the sources are primary, unreliable and about her film not about her. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been looking for a better source for the (Women in Film) award and can't find one. Have started a discussion on the talk page. If we can't verify this, that would change my vote. Tacyarg (talk) 10:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She definitely won the New Documentary Director award at Tribeca 2017, so meets WP:ANYBIO. I can't find any information online about the 2009 New York Women in Film and Television award winners, so how about someone emails NYWIFT to check? As for "most of the sources are about her film", she won an award for directing the film, and discussions about that inevitably focus on the making of the film. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the majority of the reliable, non-interview sources are about her film A Suitable Girl. Not much else about her. She fails WP:GNG. I'd support having an article about the movie and redirecting her name to that until she has a bigger, more notable body of work. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Fails NCREATIVE and/or GNG. There are literally uncountable semi-prestigious film festivals across the globe and winning one of their awards confers no de-facto notability.∯WBG^converse 07:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. FitIndia ^Talk 16:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:26, 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 redirect to Zedbazi. Mergers from history are possible subject to consensus. Sandstein 19:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alireza JJ[edit]

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

Nominating on the basis of WP:TNT. I see no evidence he's truly notable but this is a hot heaping mess of spam and garbage sources for a BLP and would require such a significant rewrite and research I think it's best to start from scratch, if he even meets WP:GNG. Praxidicae (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Zedbazi per nom. -N~~ight~~D 16:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I understand nightdevil's merge option, I think the need to conform to BLP is more pressing. Merging can take a long time and when we've got an article which is essentially a dump fire full of BLP violations due to all the claims being referenced using unreliable digital redtops, we've got to think about two things.

Is there anything which can be merged which has reliable references? In this case, it's a no.
Can we be sure that all of the claims are true? In this case, it's a no.

If he eventually becomes notable in his own right then the page could be draftified and any salient claims which could be properly referenced could be saved but currently getting rid of the unreliably sourced information, in this instance basically the whole article, is the most pressing of concerns which is why I'd opt for delete over merge. SITH (talk) 14:58, 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) 21:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @StraussInTheHouse: Pinging to clarify things if that was a delete !vote or just a comment. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:24, 23 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) 18:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpion Releasing[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE; WP:NOTCATALOG. No evidence of notability. See multiple other similar discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magnetic Video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Artisan Entertainment video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twilight Time releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, etc, etc. --wooden superman 15:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whilst I disagree with the nominator's rationale for deletion (it actually fails WP:NORG) as a company. I'd have deleted the DVD and Blu Ray sections for WP:NOTCATALOG - but then that would have left virtually nothing in the stub. I can find no sources on Google, Google books or Google scholar showing any in-depth coverage, and thus support deletion as a non-notable organisation. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:58, 23 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) 18:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Corman's Cult Classics[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE; WP:NOTCATALOG. No evidence of notability. See multiple other similar discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magnetic Video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Artisan Entertainment video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twilight Time releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, etc, etc. --wooden superman 15:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a case of WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:53, 23 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. I've speedy deleted this as a copyvio of Tilmann Bruckhaus, "The Business Impact of Predictive Analytics", in Zhu & Davidson (eds) Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining.

Our article was created in 2006. While the linked book above was published in 2007, gscholar shows three citations to a 2006 version of the paper, so a 2006 edition clearly exists. I will undelete on request if anyone wants to make a case that copying was the other way round.

The creator of our article was User:Tilmann.Bruckhaus, indicating there is also an element of promotion going on here. Bruckhaus may well have wrote this article, but clearly had assigned copyright to a publisher at the same time. SpinningSpark 17:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE: A previous version of this article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accuracy Paradox. SpinningSpark 14:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy paradox[edit]

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

Unsourced Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 15:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brew Dr. Kombucha[edit]

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

Non-notable beverage company that fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. The article cites several sources, but all of said sources make only trivial mentions of the company or are standard, press release -esque content; both of these are prohibited by NCORP. Only one sources cited by the article could be considered quaility, but even this source ([10]) is based in large part off trivial mentions and quotes from the founder of Dr. Kombucha and thus is not entirely independent of the subject. SamHolt6 (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be notable. That secondary sources may use press releases as sources doesn't mean they are prohibited, it's only where they don't add anything significant that they are not good sources. Paste magazine reference is also significant coverage and others with only a short paragraph provide context. Peter James (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:45, 23 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. Clear consensus that there is sufficient sourcing available to demonstrate notability - and that both sourcing and content can be significant enhanced via the Czech version of the article (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parukářka Park[edit]

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

Not notable. Nothing other than "This place exists" and a few TripAdvisor reviews, which is not a WP:RS ^{[Username Needed]} 15:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If I remember correctly, this park is decent in size. Surely there is some information about the park's features and history. Let us please keep in mind, there more be Czech-language sourcing than English-language sourcing. I've posted a note at WikiProject Czech Republic asking members to weigh in on this discussion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I vote Keep, based on the Czech Wikipedia article: cs:Vrch sv. Kříže. Please note, the English Wikipedia article has a banner saying, "This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in Czech." Furthermore, Czech Wikipedia has a separate article for cs:Protiatomový bunkr Parukářka, a fallout shelter located in the park. Surely these two articles combined demonstrate evidence of notability for at least one article here at English Wikipedia. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The czwiki aricle uses the same sources as the enwiki one.^{[Username Needed]} 10:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Prominent, well-known and popular public park in Prague. Unfortunately the article here is just a pitiful stub, however the room for expansion is definitely there.--Darwinek (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Darwinek. There are many independent and reliable sources mentioning various meetings, festivals [11] and also problems with planned construction in/around the park.[12][13]. A notable geographical location, just check G-search for Parukářka Žižkov. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems pass GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vipulroy Rathod[edit]

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

Promotional article created by his daughter. Barring an advertorial in TOI, there is very little reliable sourcing here.

The daughter has also created an article for herself at Natashja Rathore and her sister, Rytasha Rathore which also need to be scrutinised.

Smita Bharti is another article she created which looks borderline notable. —Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG; it might be worth deleting the others as well Spiderone 13:27, 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 15:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nominator and the weakness of the sources. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NYTC[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation, nothing signficant comes up in internet searches Ajf773 (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep has coverage in three national media - crap article on Wiki, needs expansion, tidy up, and referencing. To many edits with what appear to be conflicts of interest involved and definitely promotion of the activities of the organisation NealeFamily (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added some references, and will look for more. I believe these show that they meet WP:NONPROFIT: 1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. and 2. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sources have been added by Rebecca.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources added by RebeccaGreen are enough to prove notability per WP:ORGCRITE, the applicable notability guideline for this non-profit organization. - tucoxn\^talk 16:00, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Brannon[edit]

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

I even thought about making this article myself, but I have come to the conclusion that she doesn’t meet WP:NMODEL, at least not at this time. Article relies on models.com, while it is a reliable source for (information about) models, it’s not reliable enough to enhance WP:GNG on its own. Outside of that there is only a Vogue article about how her hair being dyed blonde makes her look like Nadja Auermann. Also that Top 50 statement is now obsolete. Trillfendi (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I'd like to try and work on this article as I think it might have potential. I looked through Google and found sources from W Magazine, Allure, Interview Magazine, among others. - Thebryan01 (talk) 20:27, 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 07:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Mission Athletics Club[edit]

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

There are no significant reliable independent sources about this new club yet, so it doesn't seem to be notable, despite having some notable runners. Fram (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4 My Town (Play Ball)[edit]

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

WP:NSONGS No reliable sources or significant coverage; only Billboard charts are cited and it didn’t even rank high enough for notability in that case. Trillfendi (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Charting isn’t everything, but charting on the Billboard Hot 100 (the all-format chart for one of the biggest music markets in existence) is generally a noteworthy accomplishment. Sergecross73 msg me 02:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, when a song is “notable” on the Billboard Hot 100, only the Top 40 is considered a success story. (When I said Billboard charts I meant the website referenced). The Billboard chart “may” be notable according to the Wiki policy but not that it “is”. For this song it’s the latter.Trillfendi (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Top 40 is definitely considered a success story in the industry, sure, but that’s higher than the bare minimum for Wikipedia standards though. That said, yes, obviously it takes more than charting, which is merely a common indicator, which is why I didn’t !vote “keep” but rather just left it as a comment. Sergecross73 msg me 12:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 14:51, 23 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Licona[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Fredy Sosa

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

It's been four years since the last AfD of this article, so WP:G4 probably doesn't apply, but the reasons for the previous deletion are still valid. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league or a senior international fixture and does not have significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP is not a database. -- Oisguad (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:49, 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. The requisite quality of sources to sustain notability is not there. bd2412 T 03:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Advanced Xoru[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Advanced Xoru" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had only passing mentions and no meaningful hits in Google Books and video game reliable sources custom Google searches. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 18:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 18:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: I'm going to have to argue that it has sufficient coverage from reliable sources - sources are not required to already be listed on WP:VG/RS. Of the sources removed in recent edits, only one (Home of the Underdogs) is currently classed as unreliable on WP:VG/S#Unreliable sources, and looking back the discussion on that classification was astonishingly weak. --tronvillain (talk)19:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the sources have any reputation for editorial quality (whether by policy, outside reputation, or editor pedigree)? And then which of those sources cover the topic in any depth beyond a passing mention? That is how we determine significant coverage on Wikipedia. We don't need a discussion on "My Abandonware" to determine that has no editorial basis for reliability. The article is sourced entirely to passing mentions and hobbyist periodicals. czar 19:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes a reliable source for a claim is context dependent - the bar for what constitutes a reliable source for an opinion like a review of a video game is not the same as that for a historical or scientific fact or the even higher bar required for a medical claim. Nothing about either Red Herring or Syntax Adventure Magazine obviously says unreliable in the context of video games (or PABSCO BBS Magazine in the context of BBS doors), and to unilaterally declare them such seems like a waste of a substantial amount of potential coverage on public domain software and shareware. If they hadn't covered the game, I might have been tempted to put the thirteen year old stub up for deletion myself when I stumbled across it... but fortunately for us they did. --tronvillain (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to seeing others support your claims that Red Herring and Syntax Adventure Magazine are reliable for statements of fact, having none of the qualities of editorial reliability I described above. czar 16:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A game doesn't need to have its sources come from WP:VG/RS and other typically reliable outlets, but if it has none at all then you have to think that other potential sources that did cover the game might be unreliable, such as the two you brought up. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tronvillain and based on sources that he added, although I have been unable to find any more (which speaks only to my own lack of source-finding ability). Agreed that not all reliable sources that can be used will be listed on a WikiProject's reliable sources list, and I dispute the idea that lacking any of the sources on the list makes for a rationale to delete, or even more astonishingly that not using sources from a list makes the other sources unreliable? BOZ (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

based on sources that he added

Which of those sources? czar 16:41, 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 07:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 14:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is trying very hard to prove notability, but it just doesn't reach it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources are too weak to show that notability is met. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasian times[edit]

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

Fails WP:NNEWSPAPER and WP:NWEB. The references mention the platform but there is no significant coverage that describes anything about it. CNMall41 (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does not seem to meet either WP:NNEWSPAPER or WP:NWEB. Other media outlets report stories from the Eurasian Times, as referenced in the article, but they seem to be republishing rather than critiquing. There are many citations in academic and scholarly works for a publication called 'Eurasian Times', but they are for a 1920s journal called "Evraziiskii Vremennik", of which 'Eurasian Times' is a translation. That 1920s publication would meet WP:NNEWSPAPER, but this new Eurasian Times does not, yet (WP:TOOSOON). RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 14:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG is not met and none of the sources show that WP:NNEWSPAPER is met. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SetSchedule.com[edit]

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

Subject only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 14:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per norminator, subject has a few passing mentions and no WP:SIGCOV. It's probably a promo piece for the company. PlotHelpful (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources are way too weak to pass WP:NCORP, too many forbes contributors Prague post contributors, interviews and passing mentions. The article creator looks very much like an undeclared paid editor. --Dom from Paris (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Khalifa (song)[edit]

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

Song does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The song has reached number one on the Global viral 50 chart on Spotify, has 16 million views and sources on it LilliamPumpernickl134 (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the song detailed in reliable sources? Meatsgains^(talk) 03:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The best source I could find is this opinion piece in the Minnesota Daily. @LilliamPumpernickl134: See WP:BADCHARTS which says "Spotify: Charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used." Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:31, 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 14:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A song by a non-notable musical duo, and all the sources given are trivial, with no significant coverage is found in a search apart from one that mentions the song - [14], and a few other passing mentions in blogs and other trivial sources. The song itself appears to have been viewed a lot on YouTube, but with no significant independent coverage, it fails WP:NSONG. The article can be recreated if better sources turn up. Hzh (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RedisGraph[edit]

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

Non-notable product (literally released today). The article is solely based on self-published sources and press releases. A quick search on Google did only reveal more press releases, 1-2 passing mentions in trade magazines, affiliated websites, and PR platforms, and other obvious PR activities such as listings and name dropping on forums. The article is a promotional announcement and far too soon. GermanJoe (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable, secondary sources. Citrivescence (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 13:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is way WP:TOOSOON notability is not there are no secondary sources that meet WP:GNG requirements. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:43, 30 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) 19:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angel DeLuca[edit]

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

Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. A biography sourced almost entirely from porn database entries. No substantial reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. Niche award category falls short of the "well-known and significant" standard in WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources so WP:Basic is not passed, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lol there's no reliable sources here, I dunno if AVN Award counts its all strange to me. PlotHelpful (talk) 20:14, 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. Sandstein 19:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C-P-C[edit]

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

Non-notable DJ. Fails WP:GNG and WP:DJ. There is a lack of significant coverage. Flooded with them hundreds 12:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable DJ. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 13:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only duplicates information from musicbrainz. -- Oisguad (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable DJ with no reliable source. PlotHelpful (talk) 20:27, 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. Sandstein 19:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Miraboi Mark[edit]

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

This "brand manager and motivational speaker" seems to be lacking in notability. The main coverage is based on gossip about a minor dust-up with the police, the rest is even more incidental. Being nominated (unsuccessfully) for two minor awards does not notability make, either. Insufficient coverage, does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep :- If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. That its the meaning of WP:GNG which the subject has received significant coverage from different reliable source such as newspapers and also independent of its subject. The word “Brand manager and motivational speaker” was confirms from the newspapers which are strongly reliable and to proof his notability, for the recommended source to know him in such profession it proof his notable. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published. Regarding your quoted section in WP:NBIO kindly read Basic Criteria. I found nothing wrong in the awards being nominated, people can be notable with nominations of awards but haven’t won any that doesn’t mean they aren’t suitable to be on Wikipedia. According to my research I see the awards which was being nominated are notable in their region which have been won by other public figure who are also notable and are on Wikipedia. --Kuki764 (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are at most two RS here. The nomination is accurate. The breadth of sources that one would expect is not there and not found in a search.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reliable sources (more than one) exist, so GNG is (barely) satisfied. EnPassant (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They have to be sigcov sources. Could you say more, beyond the pasted text that you have used in many other AFDs where I had just voted?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:00, 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 13:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also the image, how it comes that it is identical with the one in the vanguard article? -- Oisguad (talk) 08:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, saw the image on vanguard newspaper but that it’s supposed to be handled by the Wikipedia commons but the main topic here should the article be deleted or keep and your reasons --Kuki764 (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still suggest the article should be keep because I just found a news from another reliable source which is The Independent news, A Nigerian newspaper which also passes WP:GNG --Kuki764 (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject matter fails general notability guidelines per WP:PERSON. Please Kuki764 you seem to have some sort of conflict of interest with the said subject, kindly state your connection with him. Even if we would consider the article for any reason, it has no encyclopedic value as it also fails the basic WP:N It doesn’t meet the primary notability criterion of “Significant Coverage”, by virtue of that I would suggest you consider WP:TOOSOON.

Is Nutin 19:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soltesh (talk • contribs)

Delete this is way too soon. We know that his motivation comes from women and that he had some problems with police from sources that look far from being reliable. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:52, 30 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 one, redirect others.. Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 World U23 Wrestling Championships – Women's freestyle 76 kg[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTSTATS creator refuses the redirect to the competition page as an alternative to deletion so this is the only way to go Dom from Paris (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC) For the same reasons I am nominating the following articles[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Domdeparis - There actually doesn't appear to be a main article... Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sorry it's here. 2018 World U23 Wrestling Championship Dom from Paris (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one I also don't think Worlds U23 is notable enough to have separate pages for each event but there is one article from the World Senior Championship among them. which is notable enough to stay. Mohsen1248 (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would redirect it here 2018 World Wrestling Championships as it is not independently notable and this is just stats. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a World Senior Championship in an Olympic sport, what's notable if this one is not notable ? this ? this, this, or this ? Mohsen1248 (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I don't really know but all pages have to be notable, do we need to have all the heats in wikipedia of every sport or just the results? These are simple stats and taken from a single web site which is where a visitor to this page could go to via an external link. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the senior one, redirect the others per above. I'm not sure why the senior one was bundled with the others, it should be a procedural keep at the very least as an improper and misleading bundling, but I do think an event at a senior world championship is notable. Junior, not so much. If nominator really thinks the senior one should be deleted too, he should strike it from here and nominate it separately, because bundling it with the others is grossly inappropriate and violates WP:MULTIAFD. Smartyllama (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you'll have to be clearer in your definition of being grossly inappropriate and violating MULTIAFD. I agree that it comes from a different competition but all were created by the same editor with an identical structure and 1 single affiliated source and do not show independent notability from the main competition and violate WP:NOTSTATS. I am not saying that either main competiton is not notable, they porbably are. But individual pages for the different weight categories are not neccessary, there are no sources that specifically talk about any of these particular wieght categories in either competition. This is WP:FANCRUFT and all fail the notability criteria. The articles simply copy information from the competiton website, Wikipedia is not a directory or a mirror of other sites. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that there is a clear consensus that such articles are notable when they are in senior level tournaments, as others pointed out above, and whether it was your intention or not, it's very misleading to have one senior-level article thrown in with a bunch of junior level articles and may confuse people unnecessarily. I wouldn't have noticed it myself if others hadn't pointed it out. Smartyllama (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I may have missed the clear consensus, could you point me to the page? I didn't see it on OUTCOMES. As I am saying the competition is notable the final results are notable but the rest is stats and there are specialised websites for that that can be linked from the competition page. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, lumping it in with this one is incredibly confusing, and judging by the below !vote by Ajf773 it appears to have confused yet another person. At the very least, that one should be closed as procedural keep for being lumped in with the others since multiple users, myself included, have been confused about what is going on here. If you want to strike it here and start a new AfD, we can discuss it there, but it shouldn't be lumped in with the juniors. Smartyllama (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except 2018 World Wrestling Championships – Women's freestyle 53 kg. If it was for the highest order of competition (i.e. all ages) then it would be acceptable, but for an under 23 competition, nope. Almost all competitors across the entire competition don't qualify for notability. Ajf773 (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- See, this is what I'm talking about, with it being confusing. One of the articles is for the highest level of competition (all ages) and was inexplicably lumped in with this one. Ajf773, were you aware of that, because from your phrasing it sounds like you weren't. Smartyllama (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then we ought to remove that from the bundle and focus on the rest. Ajf773 (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I said. But the nominator refuses to do so. Smartyllama (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone who may be confused by the above thread, this is what Ajf's !vote looked like originally, before I replied as to what was going on. Smartyllama (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look I personally do not think there is much of a difference, notability is not shown for any of them there is 1 source and they have the same structure and created by the same editor. You guys do not agree with me and that's fine because that's what discussions are for. If the consensus at the end is to keep the senior and delete the others that's fine by me that's how consensus works. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add a bit more context WP:NSPORTS notably WP:NOLYMPICS says "Events at individual Summer or Winter Olympic or Paralympic Games are considered notable" but says nothing about anyother kind of events. WP:ROUTINE says "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all." the competition is very likely to be notable and I have no problem with that but each individual event has to meet notability criteria and as per WP:SPORTSEVENT "For a games or series that is already covered as a subtopic in another article, consider developing the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clearer that a standalone article is warranted. Although a game or series may be notable, it may sometimes be better to present the topic in an existing article on a broader topic instead of creating a new standalone page." To have a standalone page individual notability has to be met. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a ridiculous nomination. Sources do exist [15] [16] etc. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the kind of source that is needed for the result of the final and backs up what I am saying but this does not make the whole series notable enough to warrant a page. It covers her victory in the final. As per WP:NOTSTATS Wikipedia is not a stats site for sportsfans. There are specialised sites for that. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a season-long competition, though. It's one event with multiple rounds. The final is part of that event, not some distinct thing that can be separated from the rest of it like, say, the World Cup Final. Smartyllama (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the coverage of the different rounds to show that as a whole the series meets WP:GNG? Dom from Paris (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how these things work. That's like saying because there was no coverage of the 34th minute of the World Cup Final, it's not notable. It's one event. There is coverage of the event. That is enough to pass GNG. Obviously each of the rounds aren't independently notable - that's why we don't have separate articles about each round. But the event as a whole is notable. Smartyllama (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect (to the main articles) I don't see how any of these meet WP:NOLYMPICS or GNG. The results, the only thing in these articles, can be covered in the main articles if desired. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 13:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Consensus seems pretty clear to keep the senior one and delete or redirect the rest. I don't know why this was relisted once and I really hope it isn't relisted again. Smartyllama (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that I have asked where the sources are to show notability for the senior one because there are no policy or guideline based arguments to show why this article should be exempt. The reply to that request was "That's not how these things work." The article 2018 World Wrestling Championships – Women's freestyle 53 kg has a sum total of 0 indepth coverage in independent reliable sources to show it meets GNG. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misunderstanding what was said. Sportsfan 1234 provided several sources showing coverage of the final, which I and several others said was sufficient to establish notability for the whole event, as the final is not a distinct part of it that should be treated separately. That's what I meant by "That's not how this works." You can't say that there's coverage of the final but not the whole event. The final is part of the event. Of course, you disagreed, but that doesn't seem to be consensus. Smartyllama (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep the main article, in line with our usual practice on athletics. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

@DGG: The main articles (2018 World U23 Wrestling Championship and 2018 World Wrestling Championships) haven't been nominated for deletion here. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you clarified this, because it was unclear from the discussion. I have no comment otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a preference here (nearly every argument now seem valid) but what do people think about a merge of every article to just one encompassing all U23 competitions? Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 00:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be fine for me for the U23 competitions as long as we keep in mind WP:TOOLONG when determining what content to keep. If we redirect those per WP:ATD, we can figure out what to do with the content later. That's not really an AfD issue. The senior events should still have their own articles, though, IMO, and I still don't know why that one was included in this AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BaboViolent 2[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable feeware game. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 13:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Update - Was once deleted 12 years ago, doesn't seem any more notable now. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Madballs in Babo", some game that came after it, looks notable: IGN 1, IGN 2, RPS, Eurogamer, and a few other reliables on Metacritic. It is also mentioned in that article. Delete, redirect, and/or salt it. --Izno (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to G.E.M.. Sandstein 19:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Fairytale[edit]

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

"My+Fairytale"+"G.+E.+M." Web search doesn't pass the bar for WP:NALBUM point 1. The single source's wording makes it ineligible for WP:A9 but it appears to fail all of the criteria for notability under WP:NALBUM. Opting for AFD discussion over PROD due to potential for sources in other languages although searching for the translated version yielded nothing to change the notability. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on G.E.M. - this is too short an article to warrant a standalone article. Vorbee (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 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) 11:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Jair Bolsonaro presidential campaign, 2018. Sandstein 19:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bolsomito 2K18[edit]

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

Controversial little game about president-elect of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro. The article was deleted in the portuguese Wikipedia due to lack of notability Holy Goo (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, actually it was merged into the article of the campaign, in the section "controversies". There is an english version of that article, Jair Bolsonaro presidential campaign, 2018. It could be merged there too but ir might qualify as undue weight. Holy Goo (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep First, notability guidelines differ on the various language wikipedias, so what one does doesn't affect another. I agree this article is short, and it will likely never reach the normal approach we use for video games, but there is still ongoing issues related to the current gov't investigation into this game. I'm not against merging it somewhere, it is a likely search term now, but I think we should judge if in a few months no other news about the investigation comes out. --Masem (t) 15:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [Disclosure: I created the article.] Before creating the article, I asked about it at WikiProject Video games. Holy Goo does not assert any valid reason for deleting the article. The article already references two independent third-party reliable sources: Eurogamer and Gamasutra. A quick Google search easily demonstrates many more reliable sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because there are sources, that doesn't mean it should be kept. How does that grant encyclopedic relevance? Holy Goo (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I shall spell it out. I am alluding to the notability guideline, which states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline also says "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article. I think this is a case where the WP:NOPAGE part of the guideline applies ("Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page "). Regards So Why 14:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jair Bolsonaro presidential campaign, 2018. While the game is (borderline) notable, most sources mention the game in the context of the reactions it elicited, so it makes sense to cover it in the context of the campaign and not as a standalone article. Regards So Why 18:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jair Bolsonaro presidential campaign, 2018 per SoWhy's comment. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:12, 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) 11:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there was now enough time to merge a short sentence into Jair Bolsonaro presidential campaign, 2018. -- Oisguad (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jair Bolsonaro presidential campaign, 2018 as above comments. Chetsford (talk) 22:51, 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 kept, pursuant to further notable developments arising from the incident. bd2412 T 17:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Friday Alabama mall shooting[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Not every criminal action which gets reported the day(s) after should get an article on Wikipedia. Recreate if this turns out to have lasting notability. This is apparently simply an argument that turned violent, not some terrorist attack or other more exceptional event. It happened in a mall instead of at a bar, that's about it... Fram (talk) 10:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If we were to lower the notability bar to the extent that it covered this kind of incident, it would be the kind of massive increase in the scope of Wikipedia that would need lengthy high-level discussions. "There was a fight, a couple of people got hurt and the police ended up shooting one of the people involved" is, sadly, routine in the US. ‑ Iridescent 12:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and the comments made by Iridescent. There are approximately 16,000 murders in the US per year. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete an appallingly ROUTINE crime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)changing iVote because of major new developments, see below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete Because of the recent developments that show a potentially innocent man was mistakenly killed by police and the perp/perps are still at large, I don't think it should be deleted.51isnotprime (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID because, Today's headlines: Washington Post: ‘They shot the wrong man!’: Police said they killed a mall shooter — then said they made a mistake ; New York Times: Black Man Killed by Officer in Alabama Mall Shooting Was Not the Gunman, Police Now Say. Article needs major overhaul.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID - due to national (possibly international) level coverage - CNN, WaPo, NYT, Chicago Tribune, etc. Seems police are now saying the individual they shot "likely did not fire shots", and that this may be developing into a BLM event.[17] In any case, as this recent event has national level coverage meeting NEVENT criteria save for the SUSTAINED/LASTING aspect - which we can not evaluate at this juncture (lack of crystal ball) since we are unable to evaluate future media coverage we should err towards keeping the article and reevaluating at a later date when SUSTAINED may be evaluated. Icewhiz (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator; well, that's bad luck, especially for the innocent victim of the police, but (to a much lesser degree) also for me as nom of a totally routine event which turns out to be more anyway. I'ld withdraw the nomination, but there are still outstanding deletes. @Iridescent, WilliamJE, and Cwmhiraeth:, any objections to closing this AfD and keeping this article at least for now, as it seems that it may well become a notable event after all? Fram (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my "delete" in view of the further developments. The subject is still not notable in my view but might become so, and it might be premature to delete the article at this time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: Assuming I'm interpreting this correctly, it's technically accurate but misleading to say this is a case of mistaken identity; as I read it, there were two individuals having an altercation, both carrying firearms, one of whom was the person shot by police, but they now believe it was the other person who fired into the crowd. If that's the case then this isn't a case of the police mistakenly shooting an uninvolved party, but of there being two suspects and the police only getting one of them. If that's the case, and unless there's any evidence of this getting any kind of continued or national coverage, I'd still stand by my delete vote; if it does escalate into something that becomes a major story it can always be recreated. ‑ Iridescent 15:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Perhaps in a week or so it will be more clear whether there is more to this story, or whether this second bout of coverage is probably the final one and we don't need an article after all. Fram (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noting INDEPTH, NATIONAL news coverage this morning. Two hours ago National Public Radio: Family Demands Video Release After Alabama Mall Shooting Death. Investigation ongoing, but at the very least the police issued an official statement without verifying facts, and have had to walk it back. It is being treated by the press as possibly being yet another case where a police officer saw a young black man and pulled the trigger without following procedures.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and this up on Washington Post (a reported story, not wire service,) Police change explanation — again — after killing black man they mistook for an active shooter.

And NBC national news, about 3 hours ago: Alabama police suggest black man killed by officer shouldn't have held his gun; Police in Alabama promised transparency after protests in response to an officer fatally shooting Emantic Bradford Jr. at a shopping mall..E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:RAPID and WP:GNG. Plenty of good sources.BabbaQ (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that a 2nd article duplicating this topic has been created : Shooting of Emantic Fitzgerald Bradford Jr..E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This event is, sadly, unique, because an armed citizen trying to help others was shot and killed by police in the mistaken belief he was the shooter. The fallout from this is going to be notable.TH1980 (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but replace the content with a redirect to Shooting of Emantic Fitzgerald Bradford Jr., its duplicate article. That article has the exact same information (and more) is better sourced. It also receives more user views. The title of the other article is also consistent with other articles about newsworthy police-involved shootings. Sk5893 (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC) Vote changed, see below. Sk5893 (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sk5893, It is our usual practice to keep the first article started on a topic, this one, and merge the second article into it. Saves arguments over which to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to this page being around longer, but replace all content with the content from the page Shooting of Emantic Fitzgerald Bradford Jr. and rename this article to that as well, due to the reasons I stated above.Sk5893 (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with User:Sk5893. Keep this and replace contents with copy now on Shooting of Emantic Fitzgerald Bradford Jr.. Sources now on this page have been added there, and that text is updated.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant, unique event. Alas!, entirely predictable given unnecessarily aggressive tactics currently deemed acceptable. Consider merging with Shooting of Emantic Fitzgerald Bradford Jr. or replacing this with the contents of that page. Meets WP:GNG. XavierItzm (talk) 03:18, 30 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 kept. bd2412 T 17:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Crowe's jockstrap[edit]

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

I don't believe this satisfies WP:SUSTAINED. For example, the article states that nobody even seems to know who owns it now. Hardly the hallmark of a significant piece of recent film memorabilia (older stuff is a different matter). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems laughable but this item has received a lot of WP:SIGCOV. Apart from the sources already in the article, a quick GNews search nets
- Harmon, Steph (April 17, 2018). "John Oliver buys Russell Crowe's jockstrap for Alaskan Blockbuster store". The Guardian. Retrieved 2018-11-23.
- Furdyk, Brent (November 20, 2018). "John Oliver Reunites With Russell Crowe's Jockstrap For Arnie Hammer-Starring 'The Wax And The Furious'". ET Canada. Retrieved 2018-11-23.
- Locker, Melissa (May 7, 2018). "Russell Crowe Names Koala Chlamydia Ward After John Oliver". Time. Retrieved 2018-11-23.
- Swertlow, Meg (April 7, 2018). "Russell Crowe's Jock Strap Sells for $7,000 at Divorce Auction". E! Online. Retrieved 2018-11-23.

WP:SUSTAINED does not apply here as this item did not receive brief bursts of news coverage but rather continued coverage over a period of multiple months, beginning in April 2018, again in May and July 2018, then in September 2018 and now in November 2018.

Again, I'm aware that some people might find this subject ridiculous to include but it's not our job to decide what reliable sources should write about. Regards So Why 08:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our job, as editors of an encyclopedia, is to exercise editorial discretion and sound judgment across the project. I agree that there's plenty of news coverage about this jockstrap, enough to warrant mention in Wikipedia, but with the appropriate context and weight, in my opinion. A standalone article, rather than a sentence or two in the Cinderella Man article, seems excessive to me. I also do not think mentioning this jockstrap in other articles such as Russell Crowe or Blockbuster LLC is really warranted. This was a dumb gimmick and it should be covered in Wikipedia with that perspective. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The item appears in The Book of the Year 2018 and that's sustained coverage. Andrew D. (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has received in-depth and persistent coverage in reliable sources. ——SerialNumber54129 09:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. So Why 11:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. So Why 11:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cinderella Man, Blockbuster LLC and Last Week Tonight with John Oliver as appropriate. All of six months or so of "sustained" coverage, huh? Meanwhile, I discovered just the other day that we have an article about someone who received coverage for decades and who died in February, yet we continue to portray this person as still living. Factual accuracy takes a backseat to dumping low-hanging fruit and running, huh? I have to wonder if these keep !voters really understand the damage that's being done by turning Wikipedia into a compendium of trending topics and a popularity contest, all the while attempting to con people into believing that such constitutes "the sum total of all human knowledge". Then there's the over-reliance on news media sources versus any other type of reliable sources. If the media really had their act together, I would have had sufficient enough advance notice of the day when the jockstrap appeared here in Fairbanks and therefore had a free-content photo for the article. That doesn't happen when journalism these days consists largely of someone sitting in an office and talking to publicists instead of going out in the real world. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument seems to be more a criticism of what the media reports on and less of the article in question. However, saying that the media should focus on other stuff instead does not change the fact that they focused on this instead and we have to deal with the coverage as exists, not as we wish it existed. Also, merging a topic into three different articles defeats the point of merging since you would make the information harder to find than if it were on a single page. Regards So Why 11:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and to put it another way, WP:Other stuff is shit? ——SerialNumber54129 17:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability is not inherited - only joking Atlantic306 (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The deletes sound a lot like IDONTLIKEIT. This item has taken on a course of its own, and a sustained one. From prop to auction item to part of a sketch on a tv show to a draw at a Blockbuster to back in another sketch reunited with Crowe, and onward... We don't know where it is now, and that information will likely become known, further expanding the article. Even now, there are dozens of sources that discuss it in detail. It overwhelmingly passes GNG. So where to put it? The item is mention-worthy in a Russell Crowe#Legacy section, a Last Week Tonight With John Oliver section, a Cinderella Man section, and perhaps even slightly a Blockbuster Video section. It cannot be merged into Cinderella Man because the content would make up a third of that article, unbalancing it. Plus, the item would feel overly attached to that article when it has mostly abandoned its connection to that movie. As a standalone, it is easily accessed by all four using a main template or other link. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since it looks like the damned thing is going to survive, at least rename it Russell Crowe's jockstrap from Cinderella Man. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it does survive, that should be discussed after this AfD along with whether it should be added to List of film memorabilia and List of things that should be only handled with tongs. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets GNG. Sure, this has potential to be merged, with multiple potential merge targets. Probably better at this point to discuss this option on the article talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, refs look fine. Szzuk (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The item has received coverage, but only as a result of its mention on Last Week Tonight. Looks like a case of WP:ONEEVENT to me, with a cursory mention of the jockstrap at Cinderella Man, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver and Russell Crowe. – Pee Jay 08:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please check your WP:VAGUEWAVE since the guideline you cited is about the notability for people, not items. Also, your argument is incorrect, since WP:SIGCOV does not exclude items just because the coverage had a certain origin. That's like saying "<insert famous player here> has received coverage, but only as a result of playing for <insert famous sports team here>". Regards So Why 14:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. It is only notable because of one television program - it would not and will not gain coverage if not for a recurring gag in a comedy show. -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand "delete or merge". Do you think the content should be preserved (somewhere) or removed completely? It can't be both logically. Also, could you point out the policy or guideline that requires such a merger? After all, plenty of other stuff exists that has its own article despite being only notable because of one television program. And this item has gained coverage outside the television show, e.g. [18] and [19]. Regards So Why 10:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is it should not be a standalone article, I'm comfortable with either delete or merge. Notability is my greatest issue here, and the "coverage outside the television show" you refer to is only coverage based on the TV show stunt. It holds no notability without the TV program and there is no extensive coverage of the item before it was featured on LWT (including when it was part of a film) and is no coverage that doesn't reference LWT in it. It is not notable enough for its own article in my judgement -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you are comfortable with shouldn't be the question. But you have not yet answered mine: Either the item is sufficiently notable to be mentioned somewhere, then it shouldn't be deleted. Or it's not, then it shouldn't be merged. It can't be both.

As for the other part, I still see no policy or guideline whereby this disqualifies an item from having its own article. While WP:OSE does caution us not to cite other articles as a reason why a subject is notable, it also says that standalone articles about certain subjects can be decided on whether other such subjects have standalone articles. Anna mentioned Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption as an example of another "stunt" by LWT that has been kept by a strong consensus at AFD. Neither having coverage before being featured on LWT nor having coverage that does not reference LWT is a requirement for a standalone article per WP:PAGEDECIDE.

On a side note, here are some sources that explicitly mention the jockstrap but not John Oliver or LWT (most of them also from before it appeared on LWT): [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]

Regards So Why 10:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this important instance of a clever publicity stunt / marketing strategy to Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. — 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is, there is no consensus of where to merge it to. Plus, even if it is a "clever publicity stunt / marketing strategy", that is irrelevant. Notability is notability. Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption is notable, and that is not just otherstuffexisting. That deserves an article, as does this, based on notability independent of any motivation of Oliver. This item was covered well in media, covered Crowe well in Cinderella Man, was responsible for a koala chlamydia ward, was a big deal in Alaska, and part of two sketches with big celebs in the show, and, its journey is not over. All of this is supported by literally dozens of media stories discussing it in detail. It is notable and deserves a standalone. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But none of the coverage is independent of the television show. It has no notability independent of the show. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Are you talking about WP:SIGCOV? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The final point of the WP:GNG is perhaps most relevant if you like: "...significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article..." -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I'm still confused. What does that have to do with your sentence starting "But none of the coverage is...". And again, what does that sentence mean? What policy or guideline does it refer to? You did not answer that. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the GNG says, significant coverage does not guarantee the subject merits its own article. The existance of sources alone is not enough, and as I and others have observed, this item doesn't have its own coverage without being linked to LWT. Its own article gives undue weight to a recurring sketch in my opinion -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that still does not make sense to me. And what does it matter if it is only linked to LWT, (which it is not, by the way)? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anna; sorry, long day. Without John Oliver / LWT it fails WP:ONEEVENT. Because of LWT and their communications department it probably does not fail that WikiRule, because the meme got new life breathed into it whenever coverage began to flag. Serious investigation would need to be conducted to determine whether or not a better title would in fact be John Oliver's former jockstrap, because reasons. For instance, Minassian Media, Inc. (founded by former Comedy Central employees) emphasized in their WMF-commissioned report on en.wp's future marketing in September 2016: it's time for a '"post-election gag about getting "back to facts now."' So whose jockstrap is it? Shouldn't this be settled before we name the page, lest we be accused of "spreading fake news"?(§). Knowing there's a DYK lined up leads me to believe that, next, J. Oliver will be pointing out that he made the en.WP front page, which might get people digging into why the former Comedy Central Clinton Foundation CCO was writing the WMF's communications strategy audit and training their staff during the 2016 election. So, yeah, maybe I just don't like it. Maybe if we boiled it? — 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. To be honest, I don't like it either. But, I do think it merits an article because of the massive coverage and that it went beyond LWT when it influenced Blockbuster and koalas with chlamydia, poor dears. You are now the second person to suggest boiling it. (I'm sure the auction house boiled it for a few hours following a directive from their insurance company.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SashiRolls: The fact that ONEEVENT only applies to people, not items, notwithstanding, did you notice the sources I mentioned above? The jockstrap was extensively covered in RS, including The Times, Bloomberg, Men's Health, The Daily Edge and others, before it first appeared on Oliver's show. Afaict, coverage began in March 2018 (e.g. on the AV Club) and intensified in the days around the sale. So it's not even ONEEVENT if one accepts that ONEEVENT could apply here at all. Regards So Why 08:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm updating my !vote to: Do what you want. A good argument has been made above to merge this page to LWT advertising / marketing strategy. It could also be an introductory paragraph to an article about the koala chlamydia epidemic. I would suggest a DYK more along the lines of "DYK that the koala chlamydia ward of the Australian zoo was paid for through the purchase of a jock strap?" (seems a bit more useful than just being shocked by the price it fetched. But like I said, DWYW. This reminds me a lot of the AfD about Donald Trump's hair of course...— 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 10:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sensationalist tat, that belongs more to a tabloid than a serious encyclopaedia. His marketing manager must be laughing all the way to the bank. Bermicourt (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Care to point out a policy or guideline to support your !vote? None of the notability guidelines I know about contain rules that "sensationalist tat is always non-notable". Regards So Why 09:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, care to provide something other than IDONTLIKEIT? As you know, IDONTLIKEIT is an argument to avoid and disregarded. If you really want it deleted, you need to cite guidelines or policies. The Keeps have done plenty of that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My variant of the Pokémon test is the Trap Adventure 2 test. This jockstrap is far more notable than that, so deletion makes no sense. - Alexis Jazz 00:41, 29 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. I as a nominator now agree this should be kept and withdraw this AfD. (non-admin closure) Dial911 (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dambaru Sisa[edit]

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

More than 70% of the article is copied from erienewsnow.com/story/39526269/the-primitive-tribe-bonda-is-not-meant-only-for-photography-they-deserve-better-life-dambaru-sisa-mla-odisha-state-legislative-assembly-india. After removing copied material, this article would not have reliable sources. Only The Pioneer newspaper has 5 lines mentioned about Sirsa. I don't think that is enough to sustain this. Dial911 (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An untidy article but that is a matter for improvement. The subject is verifiable as an elected MLA (e.g. "Odisha Sun Times", 2014) which is sufficient for WP:NPOL. AllyD (talk) 08:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I will improve the article but keep this article and I have added listed below evidence, those are sufficient for WP:NPOL

Bondas, a primitive tribe in Odisha hills, get their first MLA

First Bonda MLA, Odisha Suntimes

First Bonda tribe MLA in Odisha Assembly Press Trust Of India, Bhubaneswar, Odisha

Bonda Tryst With Democracy, Hindustan Times, Odisha

Why I hope #AchheDin won’t reach Andaman’s primitive Jarawas, Wordly Ties

Odisha MLA helps public repair damaged road, Asian Age, Odisha

Delay in construction of Gurupriya Bridge raise speculations , Dailyhunt, Odisha

User:BibhutiPattnayak 11:49, 23 November 2018 (GMT)

Keep: Above evidence are sufficient to keep this article under WP:NPOL category — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyanprakashsingh1990 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, this still needs some improvement, but the sources do exist to improve it with. Even if they're weakly sourced in their current state, we know for a fact that holders of office at the state legislative assembly level get reliable source coverage — and passing GNG is a question of how many sources exist to improve the article with, not of how many sources are already in the current version of the article. Copyright problems don't necessarily have to force the deletion of the article in all instances, because articles can be easily rewritten to resolve the copyright problem — and since the copied source is actually a press release on an open press release distribution platform in an American local media market where an Indian MLA would not be expected to organically generate real news coverage, this isn't even really a copyright violation — rather, it was that classic Wikipedia referencing error, where people who misunderstand how our referencing rules work think they can self-publish their own self-written referencing to user-generated platforms as a substitute for organic media coverage. That's obviously not how it works, for anybody — but proper referencing does exist here, and the creator has already taken the note and started showing some of it. So let's chalk this up to good faith newbie error and move on. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 23 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.