Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 November	26 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) 15:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modjo (Energy supplement)[edit]

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

Not notable Mccapra (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A couple of press releases are really not enough for passing WP:GNG. Kraose (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:01, 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 List of characters in mythology novels by Rick Riordan#Grover Underwood. Randykitty (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grover Underwood[edit]

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

"Biography" of a fictional character, written entirely in-universe and referenced entirely to the books themselves. As always, every character who exists in a work of fiction does not automatically need his or her own standalone article just because the books he's in recursively metaverify their own plots -- the notability test for fictional characters requires real-world context, sourced to critical and cultural analysis of his significance in sources other than his creator's own work. Bearcat (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not disagreeing with the nominator but deletion is unnecessary. Instead, just redirect to List of characters in mythology novels by Rick Riordan#Grover Underwood. Pichpich (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:00, 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) 16:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DatKid Smoove[edit]

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

Not notable. No significant coverage from reliable sources. All of the citations are to self-published sources. — Newslinger talk 22:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 22:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 22:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 22:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A vanity page by an SPA editor. All sources are user-submitted sites, promotional or insignificant. Additional googling turns up the same. ShelbyMarion (talk) 00:16, 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. I have llisted the references on the talk page of thenK-pop article. Randykitty (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Economic impact of kpop throughout South Korea[edit]

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

It might be theoretically possible to write a real encyclopedia article about this topic, but this is not that article -- this reads more like the introduction to a first-year university essay than like a proper encyclopedia article. The blow it up and start over principle applies here, basically -- even if a good article can be written about the economic impact of K-pop on South Korea, this as written not only isn't that article, it isn't even the seed from which that article could sprout. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to K-pop. The list of sources may be useful for the target article. — Newslinger talk 22:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some salvageable content to K-pop#Government_support, where it is indeed talked about in appropriate detail (and could be a plausible merge target). Nate • (chatter) 01:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting topic for an article that's not on Wikipedia. Delete. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems the main article on K-Pop already covers this. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I basically agree with everyone above so I'm tempted to say "redirect to K-pop but "Economic impact of kpop throughout South Korea" is not a useful redirect. So delete is the way to go imo, although a note could be added to Talk:K-pop listing potentially useful references from the article to be deleted. Pichpich (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The economics of the genre are already discussed (much better) at K-pop, and the title is unlikely to be a redirect-worthy search term. The person who wrote this article could be invited via a talk page message to contribute his/her knowledge of this subtopic to the appropriate sections of the K-pop article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sarasota County Library System. Anything worth merging can be retrieved from the history. I note that at this point, I am unaware of any consensus that libraries are inherently notable (IMO, they're not). Randykitty (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Staub Library[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unable to locate any secondary sources which describe this local library in detail. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep Public libraries, like schools, have (IMO) inherent notability - cf google --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tagishsimon: I looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Libraries for something about inherent notability of public libraries but was unable to find it. If you could please point me to consensus about this I will withdraw my AfD. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please look up IMO and put a pin in your bogus pomposity. thx. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of this personal attack? You could have provided a simple shortcut. For instance, WP:IHN for describing inherent notability. – The Grid (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Partly my misunderstanding. I had no idea what "IMO" meant and assumed this editor was asserting that libraries have inherent notability, when in fact this editor was stating it was "in my opinion". "IMO", "CF", "THX"...IDGI. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Magnolia677 for following up with explanation that you didn't understand what Tagishsimon meant. Hmm, i visited here a few times and did not understand your own post, what you meant by the sequence IMO, CF, THX, ...IDGI. Now I finally do, your point is that Tagishsimon used the first three, and then you used the abbreviation for "i don't get it". Ah. Okay, good, and it is a fair point about how we should strive to communicate clearly, for USian and other editors too (just to throw in some jargon that puzzled me in some other discussion, for the heck of it!). Thanks! --Doncram (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know about pomposity, but I do think that public libraries are basically notable as important institutions that are key part of social fabric. There are countless references in papers to events at the libraries and it is useful to have a Wikipedia page as a reference. It is okay to cover an individual library within an article about a library system instead, but here I don't see a library system article to which this could be merged, and the article seems fine as it is. The article has four sources separate from external link to a county page that seems to be the official page of info for the library, and that does not include no doubt numerous news articles about budgets and so on. The opening hours should be dropped though. --Doncram (talk) 05:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some local libraries--like some elementary schools--are indeed notable. This isn't one of them. Except for this source, which was cited in the article, there is trivial mention of this library in secondary sources (and no, Friends of Shannon Staub Library isn't a reliable source). Unless there is indeed some inherent notability to local public libraries, as User:Tagishsimon has asserted, then let's respect WP:GNG, lest we have articles about every local public library and their poetry reading hours. I see that Elsie Quirk Public Library, also created by this editor, was proposed for deletion by User:DGG. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given there is a new article on the library system with a section for this one, it is ok by me for this to be closed by "merge" to there, specifically to Sarasota County Library System#Shannon Staub Library. I still think "keep" is ok. "Merge" is preferable to "redirect" as a close because substantial material (including the reference accepted as independent and valid by several here) is being merged / has been merged to there. "Redirect" would be unnecessarily derogatory about the value of the article which was created, in my opinion. —Doncram (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC) [revised 01:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)][reply]

Redirect to Sarasota County Library System unless enough material can be provided to support the article on its own. – The Grid (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to that. That is a new article created at 23:01 on 25 November 2018 by User:Ksroush01, after this AfD was started. Thank you Ksroush01 for doing that. --Doncram (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I realized it was new as well. Sarasota_County,_Florida#Museums_and_libraries could have sufficed as well. – The Grid (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the county system , which seems the obvious way to handle this,and the way we have almost always handled similar articles. The article here is no more than an directory entry. None of the sources meet the usual standards. Being a key part of the community fabric would extend our coverage way beyond our usual concepts of notability--for example, it would logically include every local church. DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Public libraries are different from churches, which are private, are allowed to discriminate in certain ways, are not publicly funded, have no public info available in general or from, say, FOIL requests, etc. —Doncram (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is important. I'm gonna write an essay about this. Watch wp:ITSALIBRARY (currently a redlink). --Doncram (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Sarasota County Library System. There is a little info in this article that can be added, therefore not just a Redirect. MB 14:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fluke Corporation#Pomona Electronics. Randykitty (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pomona Electronics[edit]

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

No significant coverage for this company. A two sentence article. SL93 (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant secondary-source coverage found of this company, only promotional materials published by the company itself. Ewen Douglas (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, ~~Delete~~ Redirect to Fluke Corporation. Oh, my, that's embarrassing (I'm the original author, 11 years ago). I did some searching. Other than zillions of hits in the DigiKey, Mouser, and similar catalogs, all I could find are a few passing mentions

"Barrel-Audio Cables Market Overview, Industry Top Manufactures, Market Size, Industry Growth Analysis and Forecast: 2022 - Market Gazette". Market Gazette. Retrieved 25 November 2018.
"Barrel Audio Connectors Market 2018 Global Industry Sales, Supply, Consumption, Demand, Analysis and Forecasts to 2023 - Chronicle India". Chronicle India. Retrieved 25 November 2018.
"Top 20 Countries Data of Prototyping Products-Global Market Status and Trend Report 2013-2023: Market Status by Countries, Type, Manufacturers and Downstream Industry of North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, Middle East and Africa – Depositor Money". depositormoney.com. Retrieved 25 November 2018.
"The Synthesizer". Google Books. Retrieved 25 November 2018.

but I can't honestly argue any of this meets WP:NCORP. Which is a shame, and somewhat surprising, since Pomona is a major company in their field, and has been around for ages. I was buying their stuff in the 1980's, and they're still going strong. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Fluke Corporation#Pomona Electronics, Pomona Electronics's parent company, in lieu of deletion.
According to https://www.fluke.com/, "The Fluke family includes many brands around the world including PLS, Pomona and Amprobe." Clicking on "Select a Fluke company" and "Pomona" redirects the browser to https://www.pomonaelectronics.com/. This confirms that Pomona Electronics is still part of Fluke Corporation.
Here are sources I found about Pomona Electronics to verify information about the subject:
1. Lothrop, Gloria Ricci (1988). Pomona: A Centennial History. Northridge, California: Windsor Publications. pp. 144–145. ISBN 978-0-89781-263-4. Retrieved 2018-11-26.
  The book notes in the "Index" section on page 187:
  ITT Pomona Electronics, 144–145
2. "Specialization Credited for Steady Growth". Los Angeles Times. 1961-01-29. Archived from the original on 2018-11-26. Retrieved 2018-11-26 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes:
  
  Founded in 1952
  
  Pomona Electronics was founded in early 1952 to manufacture one product, a test cable assembly for checking TV picture tubes. Three working partners and one production girl launched the business in a plant area no larger than a good-size living room.
  The nine years since this beginning have seen the company outgrow its quarters twice and progress from this one item (no longer manufactured) to more than 100 specialized products. Their products are enjoying an ever increasing acceptance by manufacturers and laboratories concerned with testing and design of electronic equipment.
  Many of the items currently manufactured are a direct result of development by Joseph Musarra.
3. Smith, Kevin (2002-04-16). "2 firms planning to leave Pomona - Companies will take 150 jobs with them". Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.
  The article notes:
  
  Pomona Electronics, a subsidiary of the Everett, Wash.-based Fluke Corp., plans to move its manufacturing facility to Everett by June, company officials said.
  The company's 34,000-square-foot plant, at 1500 E. Ninth St., employs 100 workers, some of whom will move to Washington and remain with the company, Fluke spokesman Larry Wilson said.
4. "Fluke acquires Pomona Electronics". Air Conditioning, Heating & Refrigeration News. 1999-01-25. Archived from the original on 2018-11-26. Retrieved 2018-11-26 – via HighBeam Research.
  The article notes:
  
  EVERETT, Wash. -- Fluke Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Danaher Corp., announced the acquisition of Pomona Electronics, Pomona, Calif., from its parent company, ITT Industries.
  As part of the agreement, Pomona will continue as Pomona Electronics and will operate as a division of Fluke.
  There is more information about Air Conditioning, Heating & Refrigeration News at https://www.achrnews.com/contactus.
5. "25-Year Honors". Progress Bulletin. 1976-01-24. Archived from the original on 2018-11-26. Retrieved 2018-11-26 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes:
  
  Carl and Joseph Musarra, founders of Pomona Electronics, now a property of ITT, were honored recently in marking the 25th anniversary of the company.
6. "Valley company enlarges plant". Progress Bulletin. 1974-11-21. Archived from the original on 2018-11-26. Retrieved 2018-11-26 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes:
  
  Founded in 1951, by Joseph J. and Carl Musarra, Pomona Electronics produces more than 300 products in the electronic test accessories field.
  The firm maintains a nationwide network of dealer-representatives to serve industrial and government clients. The firm is represented in Europe by ITT Cannon Europe, a division of International Telephone and Telegraph Corp.
7. "Local electronics firm expands again". Progress Bulletin. 1974-10-12. Archived from the original on 2018-11-26. Retrieved 2018-11-26 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes:
  
  Founded in 1951 by brothers Joseph J. (now president) and Carl W. Musarra, Pomona Electronics has grown from a tiny shop with two employees and one product to a multimillion-dollar enterprise producing more than 300 products in the electronic test accessories field.
Cunard (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There may be enough coverage about Pomona Electronics to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. This hinges on how much coverage Gloria Ricci Lothrop's book Pomona: A Centennial History provides about Pomona Electronics. The book's index says "ITT Pomona Electronics, 144–145", which indicates that there could be significant coverage. I do not have access to the book. No prejudice against undoing the redirect if it is determined that the book provides significant coverage about Pomona Electronics.
Cunard (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I merged material to Fluke Corporation#Pomona Electronics and added more information from the sources listed here.
Cunard (talk) 06:00, 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poisonous Poets[edit]

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

There is no significant coverage and they only released one mixtape which has no coverage either. SL93 (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was speedied in the 2006 AfD. SL93 (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no evidence that they meet any of the criteria of WP:BAND. Qwfp (talk) 21:30, 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 no consensus. Better to wait about 6 months before taking this to AfD again (that is, if the article hasn't become better sourced by then). Randykitty (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mizna Waqas[edit]

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

ACTORBIO states person should "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." to qualify for a standalone WP entry.

Subject does not has had major roles in significant TV series therefore fails to meet ACTORBIO. In the previous AfD, the subject was credited for having played a major role in Peek-A-Boo Shahwaiz - the page itself has been removed because lack of WP:N Saqib (talk) 10:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a disrusptive renomination just 2 months after a three week no consensus that had plenty of participation, followed by removing two of her roles from the article which can easily be primary sourced just before this nonination. Passes WP:NACTOR with prominent roles in national television series as confirmed in reliable sources such as Dawn Atlantic306 (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No disrusptive renomination. You're violating BLP by adding poorly sourced information and citing unreliable sources. --Saqib (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:46, 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) 17:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrude Baines[edit]

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

Another non-notable supercentenarian. The writing is blatantly promotional and entirely consists of either longevity cruft or other irrelevant filler material, and other than the Guinness notes is routine coverage. Once stripped of all that we're left with a picture and a couple statistics; clearly WP:NOPAGE, and barely even really enough for a minibio. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like her earliest memory was a car ride, a list of moves, what presidents she has voted for, and her favorite foods. Her name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the four lists they already reside on. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there is a list of 100 oldest American people ever, I don't see the significance of this achievement. Deb (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Besides the longevity trivia, all we have is wise advice to eat well and believe in God. I do both, I hope I live that long. Not notable in the least. — JFG ^talk 20:02, 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) 17:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Svetlana Svetikova[edit]

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

A non-notable Russian actress and singer--RTY9099 (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She gets significant coverage in Russian. 2.34.241.247 (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all. Mostly gossip and a little tabloid.--RTY9099 (talk) 22:14, 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sentul City, Indonesia[edit]

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

advertisement article, Sentul City is the name of the private developing project Flix11 (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- First per WP:GEOLAND as this is a legally recognized inhabited place. Second, there's plenty of independent coverage, even in English, e.g. Jakarta Globe, Jakarta Post, Business Times. There is even more in Malay that I'm not citing here as I don't know how to judge the quality of the sources, but some of them are obviously reliable. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to Sentul, Indonesia after this is closed. I checked the history and it seems the article was originally titled Sentul, Indonesia. An earlier version also confirms that the article was actually about the area named Sentul. In contrast, Sentul City seems to be a private residential compound as the nominator has correctly observed. Most of the information about Sentul City was added later. I will clean up some of it.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:47, 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duel (1957 film)[edit]

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

Film with unclear significance.--RTY9099 (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Film by a notable director with notable actors, released in Russia as Poyedinok and internationally as The Duel. Google Books has several mentions. Would certainly have received coverage I would have thought having had a cinematic release in several countries. --Michig (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with above comments, it has reliable sources books coverage and needs improvement rather than deletion as a first option Atlantic306 (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dennie_Cody[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dennie Cody

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

Subject not notable. Lack of sources and level of details make it read like a promotional piece written by the subject. Cubby2718 (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article reads like a promotional bio, and it completely lacks proper sourcing.TH1980 (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dice tower[edit]

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

Not notable; this may be a novelty, but it doesn't gain significant coverage in reliable sources, unaffiliated with a specific manufacturer. Vettweiss-Froitzheim Dice Tower might also be non-notable. I found this article about a roman artifact, which touches on the Roman usage. Modern usage, on the other hand, is simply not documented in any reliable sources. wumbolo ^^^ 19:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Absurd nomination which proves itself wrong by citing a good source. It is easy to find more coverage such as Roman Artefacts and Society, "The use of a dice tower to prevent cheating by preventing handling of the throwing pieces is the subject of an epigram by Martial. Examples of the dice towers themselves are known from the archaeological record...". Andrew D. (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a couple of sentences of coverage. Even if there exist a hundred photos of these things, we would want actual significant coverage of them. Also, does WP:FART not apply to insignificant old artifacts? wumbolo ^^^ 22:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My view remains that WP:SKCRIT #2 applies and so my !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – while the article needs some sources, it is a significant topic and clearly notable. I found this scientific journal article that proves its lasting significance, and now I see that the same article is actually mentioned in the nomination statement as evidence that it's not "modern" enough! I agree with Andrew - this is absurd. Brad v 04:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. --Doncram (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with fairness to the nominator, this one's actually really hard: I see a lot of hits talking about the "Roman Dice Tower" which is actually the Vettweiss-Froitzheim Dice Tower, but they are either not from reliable sources or just a photo as it's an interesting looking artifact. Most of the sources that I see that are good have already been mentioned in this AfD, along with [1]. Trying to add a source to the article isn't easy, either: I thought I could source the "dice tumbler" backgammon line most easily and no luck with that after about eight minutes. I don't think it's a delete off of WP:NEXIST due to the Roman history bit, but I can't argue for a keep at the moment, and it's far from an "absurd" nomination. SportingFlyer talk 15:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your trying to be nice, and I agree we shouldn't bash deletion nominators all the time. The photo in the article is hugely powerful/convincing/interesting though and on its own it really makes the article a keeper, IMHO, irregardless of other sources. I am not sure if you allude to other photos too, but the one photo really is worth a thousand words. --Doncram (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A picture may be worth a thousand words, but I don't see how you would write an encyclopedia article from one without any SYNTH. Very interesting it may be, but sources (via NEXIST if not actual substantial mentions) will be the best argument. The pictures are all on Commons, so that doesn't really affect deletion here. 139.216.48.47 (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually an encyclopedia article has been written. And it has 3 nice pictures now. I don't see any problems with it. There are no citations currently, but there are also no controversial assertions which might require sourcing. There is nothing questioned or debated at all, no tags, no issues raised at Talk page. It is fine. I think we should be done here. --Doncram (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They'd be notable for their modern gaming use, but especially so give the documented Roman history. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For both their interesting history (which I hadn't been aware of - neat!), and their modern use. The Cambridge article posted above by Bradv demonstrates historical significance. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is historic evidence for their existence, including at least one artifact, as already mentioned. Scarcity of artifacts should not be an exclusion principle, otherwise the Archeopteryx wouldn't deserve an entry either ;-) Also, this hints at a second, Egyptian artifact: [2] 2001:6B0:2:2801:E581:50B6:5B4C:D99E (talk) 16:18, 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 redirect to Monopoly (game). Anything worth merging (the article creator themselves seems to doubt there is anything) is still available from the history. Randykitty (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chance and Community Chest cards[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD, ten years ago, concluded with keeping the article until a merge target could be found. A merge target has not been found in ten years, so this article should just be deleted or redirected now. wumbolo ^^^ 19:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Merge to Monopoly edit - changing !vote based on argument advanced by Andrew D.. The sources in the article itself are don't provide significant coverage and my BEFORE is unable to find anything different. Chetsford (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable being analysed in detail in numerous works including The Mathematics of Games; Monopoly Strategy; Monopoly: The Story Behind the World's Best-Selling Game; Applying Data Science; The Monopoly Companion, &c. And there's an obvious alternative to deletion, which we would prefer per our policy WP:PRESERVE – merger to a page such as Monopoly (game). Note that the page gets over 50 views per day and so there is a significant readership. Andrew D. (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can be covered in the article on monopoly, no reason for a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Monopoly and components thereof are of major cultural significance, which makes this topic is clearly notable. As these components are also used in other games, there is also no appropriate merge topic. I would also note that prior to the last AfD, Chance cards and Community Chest cards were both merged into this article, meaning that the history of this article goes back to 2005. There are plenty of sources available to expand this topic, and there is no deadline for doing so. Brad v 04:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sourcing in the article seems like it passes WP:GNG, and the original article/merge candidate is already very long, so seems to me to be a valid split. SportingFlyer talk 14:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge WP is not a dictionary or place for simple phrases with little to no major coverage. Add to the monopoly page is fitting, but its own page is a overreach. ContentEditman (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not merge, as creator. There is nothing of value to merge in this article and edit history is preserved at Community Chest cards and Chance cards. This article is already reproduced in its entirety at Monopoly (game), Finance (game), and The Landlord's Game. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:43, 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gamemaster's screen[edit]

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

Can't find any sources. WP:NOTCATALOG. wumbolo ^^^ 19:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – literally any book about Dungeons & Dragons or any other similar role-playing game will talk about the screen. Brad v 20:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dungeon Masters Screen also exists, but it is for a more specific topic than this article. Brad v 22:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be shocked if there weren't more references to this but my BEFORE for both "Gamemaster's screen" and "Game master's screen" produce only incidental mentions in a handful of questionably or narrowly RS sources. Dungeon Master's Screen, based on BEFORE, is more clearly keepable and I'm inclined to say this should be merged to that, except for the fact the latter is a proprietary name which leaves me torn. I'll wait to see what sources other !votes are able to produce that justify its inclusion before converting mine to either Keep or Delete. Chetsford (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are a common prop in role-playing games and similar devices are used in other games such as bridge. The worst case would be merger into some such page but there's no pressing reason to do so. Andrew D. (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per users Bradv and Andrew Davidson, above. As noted, a redirect or merge to Dungeon Masters Screen would be inappropriate, as that is for a specific item of this type.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: please, see the talk page. Thank you in advance. Kintaro (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vulcan, there is enough (sources and notability) to show that it is belongs for inclusion. JC7V (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above keep-voters, and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In common use for games not just D&D. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 12:36, 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) 18:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ángeles Franco-López[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a radiologist, referenced only to her own self-published résumé and a directly affiliated YouTube video. As always, every medical professional on earth is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she exists — and no, even becoming president of a professional organization still isn't a notability freebie in the absence of quality sourcing for it. She needs to be the subject of reliable source coverage, in sources independent of her own self-created web presence, for an article to become warranted. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are not enough reliable sources covering her for her to be notable enough to be on Wikipedia. 344917661X (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Happy to restore to someone's draft space if requested but no editor has yet asked specifically Fenix down (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erik McCue[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. PROD nomination removed by creator. BlameRuiner (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drafty - Has a contract with a pro club, but it is WP:CRYSTALBALL to if he will play next season. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 22:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - fails GNG and NFOOTY, but there's enough here to save until he potentially makes an appearance in a WP:FPL. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG at least for now.BabbaQ (talk) 01:18, 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brendon Matusch[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a teen scientist, whose notability claim of winning a youth science award is not sourced well enough to make him permanently notable yet. The article features just 107 words of content, but is heavily reference bombed to 20 separate sources of which more than half are carpetbombing a single statement -- and the only references that are substantively about him are "local kid does stuff" human interest pieces in his hometown media, while every single extralocal reference is either a primary source that doesn't count as support for notability at all, or a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article that isn't about him. As always, every award that exists does not automatically guarantee its winners a free pass over WP:ANYBIO -- student awards are much less "inherently" notable than professional ones. There's also a possible conflict of interest here, as the subject's science project is related to robotics and neural networking while the creator's username was "Robobug11". Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are other articles about EUCYS winners with few other notable accomplishments, such as Liam McCarthy and John D. O'Callaghan and Abdusalam Abubakar. Also, your assertion that the references in question are "human interest pieces in his hometown media" is false -- counterexamples are [3] and [4]. User:Fftgang (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those are notability-assisting sources; they're the corporate blogs of organizations, not notability-supporting media. The media coverage, at least the stuff that's actually about him as opposed to just mentioning his name in the process of being about something or someone else, is exclusively from the Sudbury Star, Northern Life and CBC Northern Ontario. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed several of the irrelevant sources, and added more substantial content about the project. User:Fftgang (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It may be true that there are other scientists from this competition with enduring articles, but the existence of one is not a valid predication for the existence of another. They must all independently meet notability guidelines as per WP:BIO. At cursory glance, it appears that the other two articles you've linked are slightly more notable given their individual record-breaking or uniqueness by way of accomplishments, region, or school. As per the guidelines linked above, one such requirement that, if met, demands notability would be that "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Being the students who afford notability to their entire school for having multiple winners, winning themselves multiple awards, or acquiring coverage in multiple publications for breaking records, notable backstories, etc. would all be distinct criteria for notability that it appears the subject of the article above does not meet.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 20:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per OP. Subject sources demonstrate coverage in a very narrow set of events, but do not demonstrate notability to levels required by WP:BIO. Sounds like a promising kid, but he's got a few years ahead of him to demonstrate notability.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 20:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shibbolethink. 2001:569:7C07:2600:3C11:2232:2F94:9B4 (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some relevant information has been added to the article: he is the youngest-ever CWSF best project winner. Does this change things at all? User:Greenobscurum 15:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This doesn't change my vote. Being the youngest ever winner in an award that isn't all that notable in and of itself in the field does not create notability. The notability for the other winners is generated by coverage in third party sources. Even if this is true about the OP, it isn't apparently yet notable for reliable notable third-party independent sources to cover it extensively. At wikipedia, we don't decide notability often on our own. We rely on reliable sources to do it for us.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 17:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, simply claiming that somebody was the youngest person ever to accomplish something that isn't inherently notable otherwise does not, in and of itself, make him special. If it could be shown to have garnered him enough nationalized media coverage to get him over WP:GNG, then that might make a difference — but if something isn't a notable achievement that would ordinarily get somebody into Wikipedia on its own, then being the youngest person in the list is not an instant pass to being more special than everybody else. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete winning a science competition for young people, even one held at national or international levels, does not confer notability. SJK (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 20:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 20:37, 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 speedily deleted as A7. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 00:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benezzee[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, whose notability claims are referenced entirely to his own self-published social networking presence with not a shred of reliable source media coverage about him shown at all. We have seen many instances of self-promoting aspirants making notability claims about themselves that actually turned out to be false -- so the notability test is not what he says about himself on social networks, but requires independent verification in real media. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. No significant coverage from reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 23:01, 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 redirect to Brockhampton discography. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1998 Truman[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a song, which basically just states that it exists without suggesting any claim of notability per WP:NSONG. As always, every song is not automatically entitled to its own standalone article just because it exists -- it still has to have reliably sourced evidence of impact, for example by charting or by winning Song of the Year at the Grammys, before a standalone article becomes warranted. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Redirect to Brockhampton discography which is what this was originally created as. Glitteratibutera removed the redirect and created the current and completely unsourced article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect per Ad Orientem above. No need to delete, it's a valid redirect. Ss112 02:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Premier League 2009–10 Scorers[edit]

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

Not necessarily needed on Wikipedia. Top goalscorers exists for a reason. Ben5218 (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an unnecessary level of detail to include. The main league season article already lists the top ten scorers, this article is simply overkill and ventures into WP:NOTSTATS territory. Kosack (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 11:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree per nom, per comments above. Govvy (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per all users above. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:31, 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. Fenix down (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Premier League 2008–09 Scorers[edit]

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

Not sourced and not necessarily needed on Wikipedia. Top goalscorers exists for a reason. Ben5218 (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced and WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an unnecessary level of detail to include. The main league season article already lists the top ten scorers, this article is simply overkill and ventures into WP:NOTSTATS territory. Kosack (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 11:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree per nom, per comments above. Govvy (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per all users above. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:32, 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 Withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dersim ethnocide[edit]

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

This is a WP:POVFORK of Dersim Rebellion. I recently undid a move and this article was created instead of proposing a move discussion. This is covered in the article Dersim_rebellion#Genocide_controversy - creating a new article is not a way around a move discussion. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Support~~ per nom. There's also a strong consensus from a 2016 RM for the title "Dersim Rebellion" Talk:Dersim_rebellion#About_the_previous_name_change. Apparently this has been a longstanding problem with the article continuing to be moved despite the consensus on the talk page [5]. Most recently a new editor with 25 edits has tried to move it twice in the last couple of months. The move was reverted both times and now we have the creation of this POV fork and retargeting of the redirects to the new article. (If it were an experienced editor I would say this should go to ANI, but I'm very reluctant to take a new editor to ANI who may not understand yet about respecting an existing consensus, etc.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing this AfD, please close it. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:15, 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. Fenix down (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20 Football Transfers That Shocked The World[edit]

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

This one-off ITV4 broadcast doesn't appear to be the subject of significant coverage. The Daily Star reference is the TV guide, and the other reference is to a Youtube video removed as a copyvio. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also to add that listing all 20 transfers is considered to be a copyright violation (it is subjective data so we cannot include a full list). Remove that and you have nothing left. --Masem (t) 17:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one-off show on a minor channel with no evidence of impact or notability -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although the transfers themselves are covered by news sources, this article is about the TV show, which requires more reviews from other sources, thus fails WP:SIGCOV. Govvy (talk) 13:12, 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 List of the heaviest people#Robert Butler. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Butler (obesity)[edit]

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

There seems to be consensus that simply being very old doesn't make one notable, does a similar principle apply for weighing a lot? References are tabloid-style coverage of his death or fat lists from sources that don't appear reliable. There doesn't appear to be significant coverage of him. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not meant to collect extreme trivia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteor Redirect Sourcing is not good and mostly not RS. If you cut the dodgy list sites, you are left with only three sources that report he died, filled with tabloidy trivia, none of which contain any biographical details. Redirect to his name on List of the heaviest people if it must be kept. Curdle (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kofi Byble[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Note also that article were moved to draft space in AFC and were declined twice but however i dont know how it got to mainspace. ShunDream (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep *This article was posted to mainspace because it was reviewed and accepted by Frayæ & DOOMSDAYER520 after almost two months of waiting for it to be reviewed again. The artiste is very know in Ghana and the fact that he is not featured on international magazines and websites doesn't mean he isn't. I have included over 25 references of top news, entertainment websites which features him. There are also references like MTV, Genius etc on this article which satisfy WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. There are a lot of information on this artiste on google which I think he deserves to be on Wikipedia. Malikofori (talk · contribs) 16:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC) — Malikofori (talk • contribs) has made few or no other recent edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Kofi Byble is a known artiste here in Ghana and in Africa. I don't see why his article is being considered for deletion. We Africans also use Wikipedia for your information. Balljgh (talk · contribs) 16:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC) — Balljgh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I think this article was well written and we need such contributors on Wikipedia. I vote for Keep because I have done some research myself and the artiste in question is very notable and hence should have a Wiki page. This article shouldn't be considered for deletion. Kofipedia (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC) — Kofipedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak Keep - I was mentioned above as "accepting" the article for publication. That is technically true but my involvement was via the New Pages Patrol in which we watch for obvious hoaxes, vandalism, policy violations, etc. but are encouraged to avoid unilateral judgements and to leave notability issues to the community. And this AfD is a good indication of that process. My assertion right now is that the article needs to be trimmed down to remove some obvious attempts at promotion and an over-reliance on blogs. But the singer is signed to a noteworthy label in his country and has a single that generated a little legitimate notice. So he has satisfied various requirements of WP:NMUSICIAN (arguably #1, 11, 12) but I would not object if other voters call for more verifiable evidence that he has progressed beyond merely being noticed by his country's promoters. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 05:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceepeecee, British Columbia[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGEO. A memoir-coverage in a local-publication. Seeking redirect to Vancouver Island. ∯WBG^converse 14:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems to be a former populated place, once significant. Once notable always notable. --Doncram (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. According to BC Geographical Names, its status is "official"[6], and it was populated. Just enough verifiable history to satisfy WP:GEOLAND, IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Shortly.∯WBG^converse 12:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, a couple of books that may discuss/mention ceepeecee: Vanishing British Columbia - gbooks doesnt show relevant pages, Cannery Village, Company Town (self published?). Coolabahapple (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was formerly populated (e.g. I see a first aid station and a port in the sources, mention of Indian shacks and employee houses, as well as one source saying a population of 1,500 at the peak - but not sure if that the cannery or the area around the island) - so it would meet WP:GEOLAND. Regardless, it also seems to meet GNG rifling through various gbook hits - [7][8][9][10]. Icewhiz (talk) 16:06, 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 16:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jewbook[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG by a mile or so.

Barring Ref 1, which is non-independent (and to an extent, non-reliable) & Ref 2, which is an op-ed; I fail to see significant non-trivial coverage in any RS. ∯WBG^converse 14:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. Forestalls fascist use of Jewbook as meaning Facebook itself. Tens of thousands of, particularly American, Jews participate in these groups. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fred Bauder:->Kindly read the second line of the edit-notice, which is so prominently visible whilst editing this page.∯WBG^converse 15:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It sounds notable, but where are the sources? The current two are not enough, and the second source is cited only euphemistically at the moment. Zero^talk 05:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDICTIONARY / WP:NEO. There isn't even an agreement in sources as to what "Jewbook" is. There is a small smattering of sources referring to different closed groups of Jewish people on Facebook as "Jewbook". Converesely, in far-right speak this is “jewbook,” a derogatory term for Facebook popular with the far right. Slate (based, in part, on Zuckerberg's religion/ethnicity I believe). The disparate topics do not rise up to GNG (e.g. which Facebook groups (generally not Wiki notable) specifically do these refer to?), and redirect to Facebook based on a slur would be wrong. Echoing Fred's concern above - this phrase is in very wide use in far-right circles (in various forums and chats) - it might make sense to WP:SALT this.Icewhiz (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Icewhiz, pardon me but Fred's concern? He was the creator and was asking to retain it as it supposedly forestalls fascist use of Jewbook as meaning Facebook itself.

Agree as to the other salient points and about the topic missing GNG. ∯WBG^converse 16:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring not to Fred's creation of the article, but to his comment above of "Forestalls fascist use of Jewbook as meaning Facebook itself." - which is the COMMONNAME at least in internet forums of a very non-RS nature but quite voluminous in terms of usage (e.g. - see Slate I quoted above). I share his concern of such content creeping onto here, and would suggest that SALTing would be a solution preferable to a placeholder article on a non-notable topic (which may be vandalized to become such). Icewhiz (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. this online chat group fails WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. As per Icewhiz, recommend a liberal application of rock salt. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pretty clear GNG fail. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NEO. Yoninah (talk) 13:22, 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. Withdrawing the nomination. Found some references on RTL and Business Insider (both in Netherlands sources). (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WakaWaka[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Lots of unreferenced text in the article. One passing mention does not make an article (other 2 are about awards that are not notable on Wikipedia). On BEFORE search, I found: Forbes and HowToGeek articles about their products (not directed to the company so no contribution to GNG or CORP), passing mentions on Gear Junkie and IPSO and short articles about their bankrupcty (routine). The only thing that can be used here is https://www.power-technology.com/features/featurewakawaka-smart-solar-devices-spread-hope-5674359/ Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wuhan New Era Football Club[edit]

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

Claim of participation in Chinese FA Cup. Couldn't find any WP:RS to support it and fails WP:GNG ShunDream (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference is added.User:Luwuyi14:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though I tried my best to fix the article by correcting the typographical errors and restructure the grammar but then I feel it fails WP:GNG and WP:RELIABLE Gghenn2 (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is there really nothing in RS on this team? They made the third round of the Chinese FA Cup in 2015: [11] I'm not going to be able to find local references, though. SportingFlyer talk 00:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the references in Wuhan New Era Football Club are news reports except for reference 1 and 4. Hence, most of the references are reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luwuyi (talk • contribs) 01:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as playing in the Chinese FA Cup makes notability very likely and there is already reliable soyrces coverage in the article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article do not fail notability and it have reliable references.Luwuyi (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This citation and this citation are from WP:RS news outlets and are specifically about Wuhan New Era. Narky Blert (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to pass WP:GNG after the work done on the article. SportingFlyer talk 05:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to scrape through WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:28, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coinye[edit]

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

per WP:FART. A defunct crypto-currency. Clearly a promotional gimmick even at the time. Coverage is of the lawsuit filed by Kanye West. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although I agree with your sentiment, I think we need a more solid deletion rational to go forward. I removed the most blatant non-sources in this edit. Some of the remaining sources are questionably reliable (e.g. cryptocurrency sites), which we could discuss. However, there is still a lot of coverage from RSes; probably enough to pass WP:GNG. BenKuykendall (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not every product or cryptocurrency that comes out is notable. You might think this cryptocurrency is notable for how fast it went defunct - actually, no, there are thousands of cryptos that have gone defunct, most fairly quickly. Maybe its notable because it used a celebrity's name without his permission and got sued - no, this garbage happens all the time. Maybe it's notable because of all the hype it got from the cryptocurrency press - nope, that's just promotion and that's all the cryptocurrency press do. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm surprised to say - this was a thing that happened and got genuine RS coverage, enough that I think it's worth having an article on - David Gerard (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It might not be the most notable thing that's ever happened, but it did generate some bemused interest in tech circles while the story played out. I think there was enough notability that it's reasonable to keep around. It was covered in plenty of RS at the time. Warhorus (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Chuen, David Lee Kuo, ed. (2015). Handbook of Digital Currency: Bitcoin, Innovation, Financial Instruments, and Big Data. London: Academic Press. p. 256. ISBN 978-0-12-802117-0. Retrieved 2018-11-25.
  The book notes:
  
  Some cryptocurrencies have legal issues such as Coinye, an altcoin that used, without permission, rapper Kanye West as its logo. This altcoin has been compared to the popular Dogecoin. Upon hearing of the release of Coinye, originally called Coinye West, attorneys for Kanye West sent a cease and desist letter to the e-mail operator of Coinye, whose name remains unknown. The letter stated that Coinye was willful trademark infringement, unfair competition, cyberpiracy, and dilution and instructed Coinye to stop using the likeness and name of Kanye West. Kanye West filed a trademark lawsuit against the creators of the cryptocurrency "Coinye."
2. Geffen, Sasha (2017-12-13). "How much would Coinye be worth today if Kanye West hadn't sued it to death?". The Fader. Archived from the original on 2018-11-25. Retrieved 2018-11-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Launched and killed in January of 2014, Coinye was a cryptocurrency developed with the intention of making cryptocurrency accessible to non-programmers. Its creators said in interviews at the time they hoped it might be used to buy concert tickets; they also hoped their ingenuity would earn them West's blessing, even though they used his name and likeness without seeking his approval. "We chose to represent Kanye because he is and always has been a trendsetter, and he's always keeping things unique," one of the currency's developers said in an anonymous Noisey interview. "We'd love if Kanye named dropped Coinye. I think he's gonna love that there’s a currency named in his honor."
  Turns out, Kanye West did not love that there was a currency named in his honor. In fact, West issued a cease and desist to the creators of Coinye, prompting them to change the currency's logo and open it up to trade a few days ahead of schedule. Coinye lived for less than a week; by January 14, 2014, its creators declared it dead, and three of them ended up settling with West in court.
  But in an alternate universe where West had embraced rather than discarded Coinye, how much value might it have accumulated? While Coinye was never actually exchanged for dollars, some enthusiastic crypto investors apparently purchased some of the Yeezy-themed money with bitcoin. On January 8, 2014, two users on a bitcoin forum agreed to a deal: 125,000 Coinye for 0.1 bitcoin, or about $83 according to Coinbase's price chart.
3. Liao, Shannon (2017-12-30). "Where some of the weirdest cryptocurrencies of the early 2010s are now". The Verge. Archived from the original on 2018-11-25. Retrieved 2018-11-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Coinye West
  
  This fun altcoin for the hip hop community existed for a short-lived seven months in 2014. Coinye West died when Kanye West sued the developers and won a copyright infringement lawsuit. Its developers tried to keep the coin alive as Coinye instead of Coinye West, but despite their efforts, nobody mines or trades this coin in 2017.
  Price near launch: Supposedly it rose as high as $1,000 per coin, according to its developers.
  Price now: Defunct.
4. Schneider, Marc (2014-07-27). "Kanye West Buries Coinye With Lawsuit Victory". Billboard. Archived from the original on 2018-11-25. Retrieved 2018-11-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Coinye West, a whimsical addition to the cryptocurrency craze, whose founders hitched its name and logo to the wagon of one of the biggest stars in hip-hop, has officially died. In documents filed July 22 in New York, a U.S. District Court declared Kanye West the victor over most of Coinye's makers, some of them John-and-Jane Does, by default because they never bothered to respond to his complaints.
  The parody electronic currency was announced in January but quickly shut down after West filed a cease-and-desist order and sued the large group of defendants for unspecified damages. The lawsuit complained that the defendants "usurped West's name and likeness for the sole purpose of propping up the perceived 'value' of the defendants' 'digital coin mine' and its 'crypto currency.'"
5. Bassil, Ryan (2014-01-02). "Screw Bitcoin and Dogecoin, There's a Kanye West Themed Cryptocurrency On The Way". Vice. Archived from the original on 2018-11-25. Retrieved 2018-11-25.
  The article notes:
  
  The newest iteration, CoinYe West, is evident of how the lunacy can stretch.
  Launching January 11 with the catchphrase “WE AIN'T MININ', WE PICKIN'”, the system promises “no premine, no screwed up fake "fair" launches, shyster devs, muted channels, and f**ked up wallets”. Just like Kanye West, CoinYe West won’t be taking any shit.
  Alongside the website design, there are some more technical nods to Kanye’s supposed illuminati connections. The maximum number of coins that can ever be mined in the currency is 66,666,666,666.
6. Yadron, Danny (2014-01-07). "Kanye's Lawyer Moves to Block Coinye". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2014-01-12. Retrieved 2018-11-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Lawyers for Kanye West filed cease-and-desist papers against the seven anonymous coders behind Coinye West, a virtual currency that went from chatroom joke to Internet sensation last week.
  The legal document, dated Jan. 6, includes an image of Coinye -- a cartoon representation of West on a gold medallion. West’s lawyer argues trademark infringement.
  ...
  Hoping to keep pace with the self-assured, brash West, the techies aren't backing down. Instead, they are moving up Coinye’s release date to as early as Tuesday night. Looking for surer footing, they changed the name of the currency from Coinye West to just “Coinye” and moved their website from a .com domain name to one registered in India.
7. "Gold diggers defeated: Kanye West wins legal battle against digital currency Coinye". The Guardian. 2014-07-27. Archived from the original on 2018-11-25. Retrieved 2018-11-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Name: Coinye.
  Age: Six months.
  Appearance: A gold coin emblazoned with a crude cartoon representation of Kanye West's head fused with the body of a fish.
8. Michaels, Sean (2014-01-08). "Kanye West's lawyers attempt to block Coinye currency". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2018-11-25. Retrieved 2018-11-25.
9. Michaels, Sean (2014-01-03). "Kanye West inspired Bitcoin alternative to launch next month". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2018-11-25. Retrieved 2018-11-25.
10. "All Falls Down: Kanye West Kills 'Coinye' Bitcoin With Lawsuit Victory". NBC News. 2014-03-19. Archived from the original on 2014-08-05. Retrieved 2018-11-25.
11. "Yeezus Balks: Kanye West Sues Over 'Coinye' Bitcoins". NBC News. 2014-01-14. Archived from the original on 2018-11-25. Retrieved 2018-11-25.
12. "Oh Yeezus! Cryptocurrency Gets Hip with Kanye-inspired 'Coinye West'". NBC News. 2014-01-02. Archived from the original on 2018-11-25. Retrieved 2018-11-25.
13. Farivar, Cyrus (2014-01-07). "Kanye West's lawyer orders "Coinye" to cease and desist just before launch". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on 2018-11-25. Retrieved 2018-11-25.
14. Farivar, Cyrus (2014-05-06). "Dutch student fights solo battle against Kanye West's Coinye lawsuit". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on 2018-11-25. Retrieved 2018-11-25.
15. Farivar, Cyrus (2014-01-14). "Coinye is dead, long live Coinye: Kanye West lawsuit prompts disarray". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on 2018-11-25. Retrieved 2018-11-25.
16. Farivar, Cyrus (2014-01-10). "Coinye fights back against Kanye West with its own cease and desist letter". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on 2018-11-25. Retrieved 2018-11-25.
17. LeJacq, Yannick (2014-01-02). "Oh Yeezus! Cryptocurrency Gets Hip With Kanye-Inspired "Coinye West"". NBC News. Archived from the original on 2014-01-02. Retrieved 2018-11-25.
18. Gardner, Eriq (2014-03-11). "Kanye West Reveals Names Behind 'Coinye' Cryptocurrency". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2018-11-25. Retrieved 2018-11-25.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Coinye to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG with sources provided by Cunard. — Newslinger talk 23:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources provided shows this crytpocurrency has received enough mainstream coverage to pass WP:GNG. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 13:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can understand rational for deletion, but there are enough sources to make this notable and interesting from an historical perspective. Sargdub (talk) 02:56, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 11:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Andiola[edit]

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

WP:GNG For someone who is referred to as “prominent”, there is a neglible amount of coverage about her to establish an article (don’t get mad at me when I say it’s because of her immigration status that most facts can’t be verified.) Washington Post source is supposed to be about her yet only mentions her a few times and in the headline they only refer to her as staffer; the article is more related to Bernie Sanders. CNN article article also doesn’t even name her in headline and article is more about her mother. There is no independent coverage to establish notability. Trillfendi (talk) 05:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 05:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is quoted as an activist in several articles not referenced here, including the Chicago Tribune in 2016 [12] and 2017 [13], the Austin-American Statesman in 2017 [14], and the Los Angeles Times in 2018 [15]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2018 LA Times: she is only mentioned in one sentence; the article is not about her at all. Basically media keep quoting her as an activist but no independent sources expand on that, especially without focusing on her mother or employer. Chicago Tribune article doesn’t even include her name in the headline (for an article that supposed to highlight her) and the author has a personal connection to her. Statesman’s headline calls her DACA recipient, not her name, but the article itself gave a 404 error. Anyone can call her an activist but being a DREAMer is not notability. If it was there would be 3.6 million new articles.Trillfendi (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable activist lacking significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added more sources to the article. She first went "viral" in 2013. However, there is good coverage of her over time after that, especially in the Nation. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still, to be honest, these rely on her circumstances rather than actual notability of herself for her career. I have yet to see a source actually independently (like I said before, one of those sources had a personal connection to her) delve into her activism without including her mother in it (she’s not a teenager anymore), politicians she’s worked for, or the Dream Act. Prime examples: "Arizona Immigration Activist Hired to Work for Bernie Sanders Campaign", “. "Illegal immigrant students' hopes dashed with DREAM Act's failure in U.S", "Agents take mother of immigration activist in night home raid", "Immigrants Arrested Near Capitol During DACA Protest", and "Sanders-founded group likely to part with staffer who tweeted about 'illegal immigrants'". HuffPost was the only one to call her by her name. What do we even know about her activism besides being personally affected by DACA? Can someone find sources on that? (Emma González, for example, also went viral but she has significant coverage (not passing mentions or inherited notability) from reliable sources about her work. They even put her name in headlines in articles that are supposed to be about her.) Trillfendi (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject easily passes WP:GNG. Even under the non-policy, non-guideline "name in headlines in articles that are supposed to be about her" criterion introduced into this discussion, the subject passes, see e.g. Carcamo, Cindy (January 11, 2013). "Relatives of Erika Andiola, immigrant activist, detained". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved November 17, 2018. Thanks to Megalibrarygirl for putting in the work to improve the article. Bakazaka (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Per above editors. There are plenty of sources not in the article that discuss her in some depth. She's widely quoted in news articles, which is a good proxy for notability for activists, that their views are sought out by professional journalists. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:26, 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 keep. Sandstein 11:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karla Jurvetson[edit]

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

I do not see anything in the article which would indicate notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC) Ymblanter (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I am finding some coverage of a donation of US$5.4 million she made to Women Vote! in May this year. It was controversial as it was in stock in a Chinese company, see here [16] and here [17]. This is not mentioned in the article. The Recode article does describe her as a "little-known doctor from Los Altos", but wonders whether this is the start of large political donations. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON? RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than the Recode piece that RebeccaGreen found above, all coverage seems to be either trivial or non-independent/unreliable. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)21:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Found numerous second-party sources, including a couple of feature articles. Here is one from The Mercury News dated yesterday (Nov 25, 2018), this one in Money Makers on Nov 6, 2018, and this one on April 1, 2016 from Green Magazine. The subject co-chaired a committee in the San Francisco Bay Area which resulted in the building of a high school at The Nueva School and has shepherded other education and environment causes, which are included in the article. I have done a general cleanup as well as added content and reliable sources. I also added content and sources from the controversial Chinese stock donation, as mentioned by RebeccaGreen. Clearly meets notability guidelines and easily passes WP:BASIC and WP:BIOGRAPHY. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: now seems well-sourced for notability after AuthorAuthor's work. PamD 09:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per WP:HEY. Meets WP:BASIC and WP:BIOGRAPHY. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources brought by User:AuthorAuthor. Useful to have articles on major political funders.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added by AuthorAuthor, now seen notability. 74.50.214.141 (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, striking previous vote, additional sources demonstrate notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:37, 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. Sandstein 11:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Tuki[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFTWARE and WP:NOTPROMOTION promotional article for a commercial software. All sources are WP:SPS and owned by parent company IPMG, see its AfD/IPMG and AFD/Shamsaldin that were also maintained by the same sock-farm. Previous PROD was contested by a SOCK. DBig Xrayᗙ 11:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 11:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No RS, but not quite a G7G11. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage exists. Non-notable. SL93 (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of significant reliable source coverage to demonstrate subject meets either WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE. PohranicniStraze (talk) 07:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The only real argument for deletion here is that at the time of nomination the article was not reliably sourced. This has now been addressed, and the better arguments here are for keeping. Michig (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ingūna Butāne[edit]

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

When I see models with no reliable sources I propose speedy deletion. When that’s contested I propose deletion. Models.com is only reliable for notability when a model is Top 50. That simple. (Note: Yes I looked before and couldn’t find them) Trillfendi (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reliable sources supporting the claims in the article are fairly easy to find. Significant ad campaigns, for example, were often covered in WWD, so any WP:BEFORE for a model should include an archival search of WWD (and other pre-internet periodicals for models working in pre-internet time periods). I have added a few sources to the article to verify some of the subject's activities. Bakazaka (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I typically go to WWD when doing research but I hadn’t seen it.Trillfendi (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep model seems notable from sources. More can be added via a simple google search. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She certainly appears to meet WP:NMODEL, and I see that more sources are available. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:59, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 11:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Élise Crombez[edit]

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

“Top 5 Runway Falls” as a source is not notability for an article let alone a modeling career. I could only find one other source on this model. WP:NMODEL

Update: After combing through several pages of only modeling agencies, I only see an interview with the Telegraph where they ask frivolous questions like “what’s your favorite heels” and “most memorable outfit” but not enough info to establish an article about a career. If you find one, present it. Trillfendi (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Frivolous? Well, she's a model, what do you expect? Quite popular in Belgium: [18], [19]. 2.34.241.247 (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could easily show you examples of how newspapers / magazines actually briefly profile models without asking such stupid questions. For example.Trillfendi (talk) 22:01, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 11:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patterson & Francis Aviation Company[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP due to sources being passive mentions, as well as no claims of notability. WP:BEFORE did not bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is hard to tell without the actual paper refs cited at hand, but the text supported by the refs indicates that the company was a notable manufacturer in the pioneering phase of aviation. - Ahunt (talk) 17:16, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 11:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Mandal[edit]

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

Appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. I redirected this article to The Great British Bake Off but it was reverted by its creator twice. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note people have right to edit the page and improve whilst discussion is happening- YOU cannot keep re-directing entry and reverting edits, it's against wikipedia policy. IS THAT UNDERSTOOD? HardB (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of blocking per WP:THREAT for things that aren't a threat are, in themselves, threats.--v/r - T P 18:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@HardB: Against what policy? And what gives you the authority to lecture other users on what then can and cannot do? You are dangerously close to making a threat there with your comments of IS THAT UNDERSTOOD?--Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability NOT only winning a reality show. But role as a columnist for a National publication should qualify for a separate BLP. All other past winners have a separate profile. HardB (talk) 07:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: HardB (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Delete clear violation of WP:BLP1E. Plain and simple. Nothing notable here. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment HardB So basically you are saying that apart from being a winner of The Great British Bake Off, he is WP:notable for being an editor of the Times Magazine. Do you have anything else to demonstrate that he's notable? Leo1pard (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. For example, The Times is the UK's most authoritative newspaper and I have a copy of yesterday's edition here. Right at the top of the front page is a large picture of the subject and the headline "Bake Off winner Rahul Mandal joins The Times". The subject is clearly not a low-profile individual, as required by WP:BLP1E. The other names listed in that item are Nadiya Hussain and Donna Hay, who both have articles. Andrew D. (talk) 10:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. Vermont (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There certainly seems to be plenty of in-depth coverage about him, both during and after the TV show. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's kinda off-topic, but given the title of this article and what happened with WP:WAM around this time last year, I'm incredibly surprised this is a biographical article and not a poorly-translated/copy-pasted article on some arbitrarily-defined administrative region in India that is redundant with various articles on actual settlements covering the same area. I just thought this was humourous timing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Great British Bake Off. That is what they are notable for and the content can exist there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Great British Bake Off agree this is what they are notable for, no independent and meaningful notability.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the appearances on ITV mean that people have seen him who never watched an episode of the GBBO. That meets WP:GNG. MarnetteD|Talk 18:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete for lack of sustained coverage per WP:BIO and WP:SUSTAINED; fails WP:PROF. Got 15 minutes of fame and that's it. !votes saying "plenty of coverage afterwards" are ludicrous; he won this month. Jytdog (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this bio is to be delete/re-redirected, similar case can be made for past winners Sophie Faldo, Candice Brown, Nancy Birtwhistle. Lets be consistent. HardB (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted, the subject passes GNG. In addition to the above reasons to keep, Rahul is a published academic researcher and is involved in a program promoting STEM in the community (a very contemporary issue), which adds notability not previously discussed. This AfD feels a bit arbitrary. At best a couple other winners are little else; Candice Brown is a winner in search of celebrity with a one-paragraph article no one has questioned. Rahul is far more notable. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 01:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

am blown away by folks completely ignoring WP:SUSTAINED and WP:BLP1E. Those are the results of long and arduous discussions and it as though they didn't exist. And the person fails WP:PROF - the "published academic researcher" is just ... words meaning nothing in light of what the N guidelines actually say. The notability guidelines matter. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E states that "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met". None of these conditions is met and so WP:BLP1E does not apply. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That one is save-able and you should strike it. Wow. Jytdog (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the point has not been grasped, let's spell it out in more detail. The three conditions specified by WP:BLP1E are:

"If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." That's debatable because a season of Bake Off consists of multiple events – the weekly episodes. And there are now other events such as this engineering event.
"If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." The subject is no longer low-profile, being promoted as a correspondent for a national newspaper and being prominent in public events.
"If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Each season of Bake Off is a significant spectacle in the UK, attracting much coverage and comment. The role of the winner is obviously substantial and well-documented.

So three conditions and all of them indicate that it is appropriate that we should have an article for the subject. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Great British Bake Off. This is indeed a WP:BIO1E case. For now significant coverage has only been during a short time period and only in the context of the The Great British Bake Off show, and including brief info about him in that article and in The Great British Bake Off (series 9) would be sufficient. If there is still significant coverage of him 9 months or so from now, a separate article may be appropriate then. Nsk92 (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO1E states that "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." So, that guideline supports keeping the page, not suppressing it. Andrew D. (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a Lee Harvey Oswald type situation. The underlying topic, The Great British Bake Off, is a cooking contest TV show. Lots of game shows on TV, they come and they go, not something that strikes me as "highly significant". The subject of this AfD was a contestant on this show and the winner of a particular season. Again, I don't see anything particularly earth shattering about that. There is a winner every season that the show is on, these winners also come and go. If something particularly unusual happens and a specific contestant has a particularly high impact on the show and transforms it in some significant way, there might be something to talk about. But I don't see that here. Nsk92 (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tacyarg (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Great British Bake Off, in my opinion it is WP:TOSOON. FitIndia ^Talk 05:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable individual who received significant coverage for multiple events in reliable sources.[20][21][22] -- MapSGV (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:07, 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 keep. Michig (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David North (socialist)[edit]

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

Putting this up together with World Socialist Web Site. Not seeing the notability. Out of 3 references provided in the article, two are from his own website, and in the third one this person is only mentioned in passing. Openlydialectic (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the nomination appears to assess only sources that are in the article, keep in mind that "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article" (WP:N). A quick search finds New York Times coverage of his open letter to Google [23], as well as multiple reviews of multiple books (e.g. reviews of In Defense of Leon Trotsky include Gaido, Daniel. The Russian Review Vol. 70, Iss. 2 (Apr 2011): 349; Cox, John K, PhD. International Social Science Review Vol. 87, Iss. 1/2 (2012): 63-65; and Patenaude, Bertrand M. The American Historical Review Vol. 116, Iss. 3, (Jun 2011): 900.; see also [24] [25]). Even without going through the additional book review and news search hits, it looks like a WP:AUTHOR#3 pass as someone who "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" that has been the subject "of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Bakazaka (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. the google thing isn't SIGCOV. I am finding the same reviews of In Defense of Leon Trotsky on JSTOR, and I see the reviews - one each of 2 other books - are these sufficient? the many Davids North in the world makes searching a time-consuming task. Perhaps other editors will find more.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources found by Bakazaka. Looks like a lack of WP:BEFORE. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am troubled by the INDEPENDENT question. His books are published by Mehring Books, the publisher of the International Committee of the Fourth International, Labor Publications, Arbeiterpresse and International Worker Books, and reviewed on small socialist websites. We really need to show that he can be independently sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For example. His 1988 book The Heritage We Defend is linked to Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI), which features North's Preface to the thirtieth anniversary edition of The Heritage We Defend. So I ran a Proquest archive search on the book, and came up with only a single item: Tribute to Late Comrade Piyaseeli Wijegunasinghe Daily Mirror; Colombo [Colombo]11 Sep 2010. The item is an announcement by the Socialist Equality Party (SEP) of the death of Comrade Piyaseeli Wijegunasinghe, who "traslated... The Heritage We Defend written by David North, national secretary of the SEP in the US." Having a book translated is a sign of notability, but the source, an SEP press release, is probably not INDEPENDENT, even though it is the SEP in Sri Lanka. I'll revisit this, but it's not as simple as that long list of books makes it appear. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to wanting to find more reviews of his books, there is the paucity of citation of his work in gScholar. Here is a gScholar search on David + North + trotsky. [26] unimpressive. So I tried David + North + marcism [27], David + North + socialist [28]. I'll revisit and hope that someone can do better.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason why I keep circling back to this discussion is that the closer I look, the more it looks like a walled garden. Here is a scholarly review of North's In Defence of Leon Trotsky, one of the handful of sources form outside the Trotskyite garden. it reads: "North, chair of the inter-national editorial board of the World Socialist Web site, aims to shore up Leon Trotsky'sreputation in recent historical discourse while also militating against new interpretations,some of which are slightly positive, of Stalin. His audience is, interestingly enough for the historian, not the world beyond academe and it is not the non-Marxist critic of Soviet thought and practice. U Daniel Gaido, National Research Council (Coni political terms. Nor is it a well-developed reassessment of the importance of Trotsky's role as an alternative to Stalin who might have led the Soviet Union down a different and ultimately more humane and successful path. Rather, it is a passionate, and, at times, nearly embittered, historiographical argument over the contours of the Stalin-Trotsky feud.".

[https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.5699/slaveasteurorev2.90.3.0561.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Acafdaa26a604396692fb88525164790d "Most ardently, the American writer David North, in a series of online publications and public lectures, collected and published in the volume, In Defense of Leon Trotsky, tries to restore the image of Trotsky as the main opponent of Stalinism and an advocate of a more democratic version of socialism. North argues from an openly partisan perspective and his language is highly combative and, unfortunately, often aggressive... He believes that the authors purposefully discredited Trotsky and falsified his legacy as a revolutionary leader and thinker. North’s accusations, however, are not sufficiently substantiated."

"This book consists of four essays previously published on the World Socialist Web Site... But the real focus of this book is the author's criticism of what he calls "the post-Soviet school of historical falsification"; that is, the three hostile biographies of Trotsky written in the short span of seven years by Professors Geoffrey Swain, Ian Thatcher, and Robert Service...."

These 3 are the only scholarly reviews, indeed, they seem to be the only reviews of this, his most widely reviewed work, and they show that the Stalin-Trotsky is still raging inside a small, walled garden somewhere in cyberspace. What I am not finding is evidence that In Defence of Leon Trotsky or anything else North wrote is widely cited. Searches turn up little beyond an occassional speaking gigs reported in an undergraduate newspaper. Nor is there WP:SIGCOV of North and his career. For all of these reasons, I suggest...

Selective MERGE to Socialist Equality Party (United States), the ORG he heads.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Essentially per Bakazaka and RebeccaGreen. There's more than enough coverage of the guy's books for a pass of AUTHOR, and some coverage of his speeches, e.g. Michigan Daily as well. The scholarly reviews of his bio of Trotsky are more than enough for me. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Michigan Daily is an undergraduate newspaper. Undergraduate papers can be reliable on facts, but they don't contribute much ~~if anything~~ towards establishing notability. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Michigan has more than 45,000 students. It's bigger than most cities in America. The paper is higher quality than most daily papers. It's not Podunk U. Weekly or something. Is your theory that Undergraduate papers don't contribute to notability based on anything other than your preferences? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there are not enough sources to pass WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR. Nor does his leadership of a very, very small political party carry him past WP:POLITICIAN. We need to find WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an easy pass of WP:AUTHOR#3. As the Critical Sociology review of a different North book (linked above the wall of text) explains, North's writings have impact on more mainstream discussions despite being grounded in smaller battles within his political community, which is why his work is reviewed and discussed in, for example, the American Historical Review (reference above) and the Journal of Historical Sociology (review essay on yet another book linked above). Bakazaka (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence that "North's writings have impact on more mainstream discussions" is precisely what I am not seeing. Yes, he has gotten reviews. What I would like to see it that the books are cited by others, whether by scholars, popular writers, or journalists. I can always be persuaded to change mu opinion at AfD. But WP:HEYMANN I need to see sources more persuasive than a handful of book reviews (some of which are harshly dismissive of the value of his work,) coupled with the lack of WP:SIGCOV in sources beyond a couple of undergrad newspapers and sources inside the Walled garden Trotskyite socialism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The actual notability guideline WP:AUTHOR#3 is easily met. Nothing in the WP:AUTHOR guideline requires scholarly citations, nor does the guideline specify that reviews have to be approving (or that one's work being "well-known" precludes being notoriously disliked). No one is obligated to satisfy you. Bakazaka (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How so? If you mean that the book with 3 reviews, In Defense of Leon Trotsky, is notable, you could make an argument for merge/redirect this page to that title. Although it has hardly been cited at all in all the years since publication [29] I suggested a merge to his political party, but if you prefer the book, you can propose it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting due diligence, I looked at the reviews of 2 other North books discussed above, both reviews are positive: [30], and [31] are positive. However, gScholar shows only 4 citations of The Russian Revolution and the Unfinished Twentieth Century (almost no impact,) and The Frankfurt School, Postmodernism and the Politics of the Pseudo-Left: A Marxist Critique got only 2 hits in gScholar, one is to this review, and the other is to a bibliography. So far, the book has had impact at all. It has been only 3-4 years since publication, but that is enough time in political and intellectual history for a even a book making a novel or important argument, or presenting new evidence to have multiple book and journal citations. Others of his books have sunk without even y a single review. He may be a notable or impactful author, but we need sources to prove it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue Keep. North is listed as chairman of the international editorial board for the World Socialist Web Site, and has written many articles for that site, and a great number of books that are published with what appears to be their US-affiliated publisher, Mehring Books. Last year North's photo was printed in the New York Times when they ran a story on his allegation that Google's changed search algorithms lower traffic to left wing news services [32]. But looking at academic sources briefly, I see that there are many references to North's work, particularly regarding either 20th and 21st century socialism, or Trotsky. Most of those references are in passing, but the authors appear to take North seriously, especially in the controversy surrounding Robert Service's Trotsky Biography. And there are three academic reviews that are dedicated to North's books.

There is this 2017 Review Essay [33] in the Journal of Historical Sociology (30:86-91) by Charles Thorpe, Associate Professor in Sociology at UCSD. Thorpe devotes two pages to North’s book The Unfinished Twentieth Century, beginning, "It is therefore illuminating to read Radical Intellectuals alongside a book on political and intellectual history by the AmericanTrotskyist David North, who has vigorously defended the life and legacy of Leon Trotsky precisely as the Marxist alternative to Stalin.” Thorpe reviews the arguments of the book and ultimates concludes the review by agreeing with the North's thesis: "The left today would like to leave the Soviet Union behind as a failed project and to believe that its collapse freed them from the debates, concepts, and historical experiences of twentieth‐century Marxism. The Unfinished Twentieth Century makes a powerful case that, to paraphrase Faulkner, these debates and experiences are not dead; they're not even past."

Here is another 2017 book review [34] by Emanuele Saccarelli, Professor of Political Science also at UCSD, published in the journal Critical Sociology (43(4-5):799-802. Saccarelli writes about North's book "The Frankfurt School, Postmodernism and the Politics of the Pseudo-Left: A Marxist Critique," and describes the book favorably as "a valuable contribution to a broad range of important theoretical and political questions located in and around Marxism – with the additional merit of identifying precisely where that boundary lies." Saccarelli also writes what might be useful in content for this bio: "North is the longstanding leader of the Socialist Equality Party (SEP), as well as a member of the editorial board of its well-known affiliated online publication, the World Socialist Web Site." There's a lot more in that review but I'll probably add some of it to the bio directly rather than cluttering this page.

Here's one more lengthy treatment of North's book "In Defense of Leon Trotsky" by Bertrand Patenaude, Research Fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford. The review is published in the American Historical Review, June 2011, pages 900-902. "North is an American Trotskyist whose book collects his review essays of Service's volume and of earlier biographies of Trotsky by Ian Thatcher and Geoffrey Swain. (He does not mention my 2009 book, Trotsky: Downfall of a Revolutionary.) Given North’s Trotskyism, he might reasonably be suspected of hyperbole in his brief against Service. But a careful examination of North’s book shows his criticism of Service to be exactly what Trotsky scholar Baruch Knei-Paz, in a blurb on the back cover, says it is: 'detailed, meticulous, well-argued and devastating.'" In every paragraph through the whole review, Patenaude supports North’s book.

I think given's North's association with the WSWS, his prolific authorship, and the combination of articles on his work in scholarship and scholarly references to his work, this bio should stay. -Darouet (talk) 05:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of editing to add some third party and reliable sources describing some of North's recent political and academic work. Cheers, -Darouet (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP independent books describe him as notable trotskyite. A big frog in a pond, I say... - üser:Altenmann >t 05:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources that Bakazaka brought forward are sufficient to show notability. This is not a claim under WP:ACADEMIC so E.M.Gregory's concerns about how often his books are cited on Google Scholar are completely misplaced. He is the head of a political party, albeit a tiny one, and a Trotskyist activist for at least 40 years. Wikipedia ought to have biographies of the heads of political parties, even smaller ones. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:10, 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. Sandstein 11:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shiv Kumar (actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. Regional film director/actor who doesn't passes minimum notability criteria. Godric ki Kothri^{talk to me} 06:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NACTOR Spiderone 12:59, 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. Michig (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Amadeus Dienach[edit]

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

Insufficiently sourced to demonstrate notability. I believe that this is a fictional character invented by Papachatzis as a literary device, and don't see any references that even suggest otherwise; the "Daily Star" article is not at all credible and the only other reference is the book claiming to be his notes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without strong sources otherwise this person appears to be a fictional individual, and the coverage does not justfiy having an article devouted to this figure in fiction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or at most a redirect to Georgios Papachatzis), doesnt meet WP:ANYBIO, Worldcat shows low (5) library holdings for the book, Chronicles, (not a good sign for a/most book writer(s):)) while a gsearch brings up nothing useable, btw, the greek wikiarticle on Papachatzis (they dont have one on Dienach) has nothing to add. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 03:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 15:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. Nothing notable, or documanted sufficiently by reliable sources. ——Chalk19 (talk) 11:13, 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. Michig (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2009 United States EPA fuel economy ratings[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Similarly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2008 United States EPA fuel economy ratings. Per WP:RAWDATA and Wikipedia is not an auto buyers guide - especially for products from a decade ago. Ajf773 (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as previous article Rogermx (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is essentially a data dump, which contravenes WP:RAWDATA. While tables of information may be useful with appropriate context, this provides no substantive information beyond the data itself. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 13:04, 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. Michig (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2008 New Zealand fuel economy ratings[edit]

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

Similarly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2008 United States EPA fuel economy ratingsPer WP:RAWDATA and Wikipedia is not an auto buyers guide - especially for products from a decade ago. Ajf773 (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Nick-D (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is essentially a data dump, which contravenes WP:RAWDATA. While tables of information may be useful with appropriate context, this provides no substantive information beyond the data itself. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 13:05, 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. Michig (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of May 2008 UK fuel economy ratings[edit]

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

Similarly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2008 United States EPA fuel economy ratingsPer WP:RAWDATA and Wikipedia is not an auto buyers guide - especially for products from a decade ago. Ajf773 (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is essentially a data dump, which contravenes WP:RAWDATA. While tables of information may be useful with appropriate context, this provides no substantive information beyond the data itself. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 13:05, 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 per WP:SNOW, all opposes being socks of the creator. Guy (Help!) 00:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Hardy (singer)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:MUSICBIO. The article previously deleted under Cameron Hardy and the AfC was declined multiple times at Draft:Cameron Hardy. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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

Delete had circumvented AFC twice and still with no notable anything to meet WP:MUSICBIO. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article had been moved to draft space prior to the addition of references and completion of all information. Article now meets the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO. Article was previously approved. Tunesywikier55 05:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Tunesywikier55 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed and is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

I don't see the Billboard charting anywhere, can you provide an updated pointer? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is he meeting WP:MUSICBIO? Please provide the citations and which numbers he meets there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppeteer. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In this diff, the article creator claims that this has charted on a Billboard chart, but this is not mentioned in the citation given. I find no indication that this claim is true and ultimately violates WP:V unless shown otherwise. Given that, notability does not appear to be established. The potential conflict of interest is also noted. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Links to verify claims are either broken or lead to insignificant, non-reliable sources. A name search of Billboard.com returns nothing for the name "Cameron Hardy." The purpose of this article seems promotional. Most charitably, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Article has now been updated and inactive links were either removed or fixed. Tunesywikier55 13:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One !vote per editor, please. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite the lack of nobility in regards to charting, he seems to be signed to a major record label. His acting credits seem to be notable as well. I would recommend merging to article "Cameron Hardy". - Shawunited 13:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawunited8 (talk • contribs) — Shawunited8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Account has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the article's creator. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am unable to find evidence of notability. Vanamonde (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an overtly promotional biography of a non-notable young music performer. Creating sockpuppets was a foolish move and their comments will be disregarded by the closing administrator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough to meet WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:09, 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 11:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Momai Tamuli Borbarua[edit]

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

There aren't any sources except for "Ms. Assam Buranji, No.7, No.8", which isn't sufficient. Notability isn't enough to warrant subject his own article. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 03:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 03:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of people-related deletion discussions. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 03:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - clear GNG failure Spiderone 20:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 04:37, 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 11:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Worldview Film Festival[edit]

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

This festival is unquestionably popular with a subset of Christians, but the article has no substantive reliable independent sources, and Google does not find any for me. A fair bit of PR coverage is regurgitated in the walled garden of Christian sources but these articles lack provable independence - i.e. they are churnalism. Overall the whole thing seems to be like a mirror image of God Awful Movies but without critical analysis. Guy (Help!) 01:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not enough sources to cover the topic. --Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 03:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am unable to find substantive information in reliable sources. Most of the information is event listings, mirrors of the winners' lists, etc., and not actual coverage about the event itself. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:12, 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. No indication he has played at a level to satisfy NFOOTY. Whilst there may be non-english language sources out there to satisfy GNG these have not been presented. Fenix down (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Poms[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a football manager who fails WP:GNG and who has not managed a club in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the basis that he had managed Wolfsberger AC in the Austrian Bundesliga. This claim is inaccurate. He was the fitness trainer at Wolfsberg, not the manager. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if we can confirm he played for Leoben or Kapfenberg, I believe the 2.Bundesliga is a fully professional league. As it stands, only sourced to transfermarkt, no prose, has to go. SportingFlyer talk 14:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing contentious in the article as it stands, all the facts are readily verifiable, we just need to know if he also played in a FPL. If that's the case, it doesn't need to go, it needs to be improved per WP:IMPERFECT. He seems to speak to the media a lot for an assistant coach, so he might even pass WP:GNG. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did a GNG search for him with Dinamo and only got name-drops, no significant coverage in Croatian media. But since transfermarkt is the one source and there's no other prose it needs to be deleted if he has no appearances, or draftifyed if he does. SportingFlyer talk 01:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I searched Google news and found several substantial interviews with Rene Poms in Polish from his previous gig. Maybe he hasn't been at Dinamo Zagreb long enough yet. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I've stripped the article, removed the unsourced content, and started building it back up. But struggling to find anything about this guy to establish notability. Giant Snowman 13:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the only source I can find (unsure about notability) about Wolfsberger is this which confirms he managed the amateur team (hence the '(A)' next to the team name, and was only an assistant to the main team. @Sir Sputnik, Jacknstock, and SportingFlyer: unsure what your views are. Giant Snowman 13:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone know German? [35] ? I think it's got stats on his career here. Govvy (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also there are a lot of Polish sources, maybe a Polish editor can get the article to pass GNG or find out if he passes NFooty, Govvy (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Transfermarkt seems to suggest he played around 50 times in the 2.Liga, which is a fully professional league. However, it's also Transfermarkt. Reliable sources do show he played for teams which played in the 2.Liga, such as [36], but again that's not enough to show notability. SportingFlyer talk 02:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our absurdly low notability threshold for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:33, 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. Michig (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ION (IPTV)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; may be promotional Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The text is unreferenced promotional and personal work. -The Gnome (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find sufficient coverage in RS. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Duplicate vote!/thought about this being a hoax removed by nominator Nate • (chatter) 04:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment Looks like a legit service without a lot of WP:N (it has a website with a good service description), but this is a case of IP's having a go at a low-edited article (that's been around for nine years here), not a hoax. Don't make this claim without a good amount of proof, please (And vote! has been struck since you nominated the article; it's virtually assumed you want it deleted). That said... Nate • (chatter) 03:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another IPTV service without much market pickup or sourcing or N. Nate • (chatter) 03:19, 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. Michig (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Optimus Design Systems[edit]

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

Article on a corporation has had zero (0) sources for the preceding 13 years.

A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google Books, Google News) finds no references to the company except a one-word, passing mention on fanzine called "poltergeist.pl" [37]. Also, its address appears in a wholesaler directory catalog.

The WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG is not established. WP:CORPDEPTH is not demonstrated. Chetsford (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage, not a RPG publisher of significant note or distinction. Newimpartial (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP and GNG. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some passing mentions in old books is all we have. Fails WP:NCORP. Capitals00 (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 23:16, 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.