Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 November	1 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to List of Daystar affiliates#Pennsylvania. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WPDN-LD[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, does not meet WP:GNG. Previously deleted by PROD by GB fan with the concern I think this is an example of a small non-notable television station. google news comes up with absolutely zero results, and I cant find anything else in a normal google search except the standard directory listings which do not contribute to notability.. I believe that this concern stands for the recreated article as well. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BROADCAST Legacypac (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline says that notability is assumed for television stations that create their own original content. However, I see no evidence that this station creates original content. I think that we can consider redirecting to the station's owner (and the presumed producer of its content), Daystar (TV network). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Daystar affiliates#Pennsylvania It's a Daystar repeater stick with little history outside of that (until 2010 it repeated TBN). Still doing a ping for article creator @Editguy123849: to fill the article in the next seven days, but I don't expect it to be easy to rescue without more sources. Nate • (chatter) 05:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or re-direct) - none of the notability criteria for broadcast media appears to be met.--Rpclod (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, Not notable on its own.Do not delete, can be a part of owner Co page Alex-h (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, I am sorry about my mistake, I do agree with you. I do have a question: this article meets the same notability as WWBP-LP yet that article was not deleted? Why is that? Editguy123849 (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment It hasn't been nominated for deletion; it probably would meet the same fate if it was put up, to be honest. Nate • (chatter) 01:22, 8 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 speedy Draftify. Withdrawn by nominator after request to be drafted. (non-admin closure) _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Illustrated World of Mortal Engines[edit]

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

No coverage in independent reliable sources. Even if we were to ignore concerns of reliability and independence, I don't think that the sources cited by this article come anywhere close to having enough coverage to justify an article. Mortal Engines may be notable, but notability is not inherited. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBOOK. Previously nominated for PROD, dePROD by the initial editor, who provided this additional source, which is also not independent. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to move this back to draft. Hayholt (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, withdrawing nomination. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:40, 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypse: Desire Next[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, likely caused by the fact it never released outside of Japan. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this one source shows a mention in a French book but it looks like a passing mention. Other links in the "find sources" list of links turned up no relevant results. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence for significant coverage. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:30, 7 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apathy: Narugami Gakuen Toshi Densetsu Tantei Kyoku[edit]

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

10 year old unreferenced one sentenced stub. Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any refs that satisfied Sig Cov on the game, let alone finding sufficient reliable ones. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The game does not seem to have been the subject of significant coverage. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:34, 7 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 merge to The Unknown Child. Tone 08:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eino Viljami Panula[edit]

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

Non-notable passenger of the Titanic; minimal RS coverage outside of this single event. –dlthewave ☎ 23:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Unknown Child, along with Sidney Leslie Goodwin (the other candidate for this body, covering the same issue). Multiple books. Multiple NEWSORG covering this. The identity of the youngest of the bodies recovered from the Titanic has been a long-running mystery - being covered in-depth over the period of over a century. This then led to a DNA based search which led to the identification of the corpse to this individual. Now - the individual himself (a 13-month old baby) is not notable. The process of identification and the mystery - was. In a sense - this similar to Mummy Juanita or Ötzi (in a more modern incarnation) - just that we have identifications.Icewhiz (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Unknown Child, per Icewhiz suggestion. While he has not received much coverage himself (outside the sinking of Titanic), the debate on The Unknown Child seem clearly notable. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:41, 7 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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking Vapor (electronic cigarette brand)[edit]

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

No third-party WP:RS. Fails WP:NCORP. WP:PROD contested by article author without comment. Note that the Forbes reference is a "contributor" article, which is basically a blog. shoy (reactions) 23:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. I reiterate what the nominator said about Forbes. It is a contributor piece so there is no real editorial oversight. The Inc.com references is simply a profile so that also fails. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP; promotional 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 7 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. Academic Challenger (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Algernon Henry Barkworth[edit]

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

Non-notable passenger of the Titanic; minimal RS coverage outside of this single event. –dlthewave ☎ 22:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Oneevent, no indication of any notability apart from it; the implication (now removed) that the person's sexual orientation might imply some notability is peculiarly unencyclopaedic as well as being unsourced. I've stubbed the page because of blatant copyright violations (largely copied from this source) – please see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Elisa.rolle. Assuming the page is deleted, no objection to subsequent creation of a redirect to Passengers of the RMS Titanic. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deletea non-notable Titanic passenger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails notability requirements, only significant for WP:ONEEVENT --DannyS712 (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of INDEPTH sources on this individual, BIO1eE. Icewhiz (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough coverage in sources, not enough sources. As stated above WP:Oneevent comes into play here as the coverage of him didn't last long and if it is even mentioned today it's trivial at best. JC7V (talk) 05:59, 4 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. Tone 08:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link Between Enlightenment and Imperialism[edit]

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

This is a high school essay and not an encyclopedia article, largely based on WP:SYNTH and mostly unsourced. Tried draftifying it but was instantly recreated. So, WP:NOT. Praxidicae (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Students need better wiki training; the exact same thing that will get you Honors props in college or a fellowship afterward (e.g., completely original work that breaks new ground) is completely off-limits here, and some of the students, perhaps understandably, have difficulty understanding the difference. For those interested in previous history of the article, it can be viewed here. Mathglot (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I think it's less about the students since this seems to be a very frequent problem among dozens of classes and more on wiki-ed itself but that's a conversation for another place ;) Praxidicae (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , WP:NOTESSAY. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I doubt this article will get off the ground in its current state because WP:NOTESSAY, but maybe the author can render it into something useful at a future date, if not the draft process will time it out and delete it when appropriate.Ethanpet113 (talk) 03:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note This article seems to have been part of a student's course work, the course will conclude on the 7th of December 2018, after which they are unlikely to return to it, especially given its current encyclopedic quality.Ethanpet113 (talk) 04:22, 4 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talend[edit]

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

Meets WP:A7, WP:G11 - no credible claim of significance, promotional in tone and content. Poor references. Note also the {{news release}} since November 2017.

Disclosing that I CSD'd the article as tagged, but restored due to a valid 'objection' - AfDing as alternative - TNT ^💖 22:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO. Additionally, it's difficult to take the argument about "information that's not coming from Talend website" at face value, given that an admitted company employee has been reverting efforts to remove content like "In today’s increasingly data-driven world, most companies use data integration and management software like Talend to enable their digital transformation and manage their entire data ecosystem." Bakazaka (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original deletion nomination. Praxidicae (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For most publicly traded companies, it is easy to find evidence of notability. For Talend, this is not the case. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with BillHPike. There are lots of Google News hits and even some Google Books hits for Talend, but I couldn't find a single reliable third-party source that discusses the company in some detail. The best are some reports that discuss specific acquisitions, but that's just routine coverage that WP:CORPDEPTH explicitly does not consider helpful. Huon (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KeepA Wikipedia page about Talend is useful since it's an open source software. Over the past 4 days, I've removed non-verifiable information and added references to the existing page. The version available in talk should now meet Wikipedia standards. Regarding comments on notability from Huon and BillHPike, Talend is a public company, trading on Nasdaq with $150 Million revenue in 2017. The company gets regular coverage on the Wall Street Journal Forbes and international press like Le Monde.what would constitute evidence of notability? This page should not be deleted - especially when compared to pages from similar companies like SAP or IBM.

Whimsicaluser (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: The above user, a disclosed Talend employee, has altered the substantive content of their previous comments and moved them to the bottom of the discussion. Bakazaka (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To add further to notability Talend is regularly covered by independent third-party media like CNBC, Barrons, and software industry trade publications like Computerworld. A quick search of Google books also covers Talend Next-Generation Big Data: A Practical Guide to Apache Kudu, Impala and Spark, Big Data Governance: An Emerging Imperative and Data Governance Tools: Evaluation Criteria, Big Data Governance, and Alignment with Enterprise Data Management. Most of the edits suggested on the Talk page on November 30th help make the page a more useful entry on a notable public company that is a player in a market that is projected to grow to $9.8 billion in current U.S. currency from 2017 through 2022 IDC. Jake.spencer041 (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC) Jake.Spencer041 (talk)[reply]
Comment - regarding the presented sources, the WSJ is semi-helpful, Le Monde more so, but the others are interviews with the CEO (not independent coverage of the company), a kind of "case study" that doesn't discuss Talend the company in any detail, and books about their software that mention the company in passing at best. The Forbes piece is not by staff but by a "contributor", effectively a blogger hosted by Forbes but not under Forbes' editorial control; that's not a reliable source. Huon (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking for sources for this company was fascinating, there are so many PR-articles and stock reporting that it is difficult to find something useful. I initially thought this would be an easy Keep, but looking closer they all seem to be rehashed PR-statements or rehashed economic reports from the company. Even the WSJ article is mostly just restating information clearly coming directly from the company. The only article I can find that looks like independent journalism is the article in Le Monde[1]. Promotional tone is not a valid reason for deletion, but since the coverage in independent reliable sources seems to be so minimal (despite massive coverage in other types of sources) I think the article does not currently meet WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 23:38, 7 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 CID The Dummy. Anything relevant can be merged from the history. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crash Dummy vs The Evil D-Troit[edit]

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

Another 11 year old unsourced....well not even a stub, it is a two sentence article. Nothing to be found in reviews, no Metacritic page, nothing. Fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to CID The Dummy if there's anything usable. This was a working title for that game. [2][3] Reach Out to the Truth 14:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Problem is that there is nothing to be merged here as it's a one sentenced unsourced article. At best this should be deleted and then redirected to it with just adding that it was formerly called as Crash Dummy vs The Evil D-Troit. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there's nothing to merge, then a merge result is effectively a redirect. This is why I ultimately chose merge over redirect, which was actually my first choice. I did end up copying some appropriate categories to the Cid article. The second sentence has no equivalent in the target article and could also potentially be merged. I'm not a fan of "delete and redirect" as an AFD result in general, and particularly here. That's for separate but related topics that are not themselves notable. This is the same topic. Reach Out to the Truth 17:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to CID The Dummy If this is in fact just the working title of CID The Dummy (which seems to be the case), then we should just redirect. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:33, 7 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 Majesco Entertainment#Games published. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Babysitting Mania[edit]

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

Not notable. Apart from coverage on Gamezebo https://www.gamezebo.com/2007/11/22/babysitting-mania-review/, nothing in detail about this one that is not a primary source. No reviews on Metacritic as well, nothing. Fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Majesco Entertainment#Games published It's 'sucker-bait' shovelware you probably still find clogging a bargain bin, based off a free Flash game. This doesn't need to burn space here. Nate • (chatter) 05:55, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Majesco Entertainment#Games published Lack of significant coverage means that it doesn't pass WP:GNG, but a redirect could be helpful for someone trying to look up the game. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 01:40, 8 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. Tone 08:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baja Mania[edit]

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

Unable to find references to make it pass notability guidelines. Completely fails WP:GNG. I am not even sure if it released at all. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. The sources I can find are essentially press releases: [4][5][6][7], not in-depth. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:20, 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. Tone 08:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Wessel[edit]

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

Notability concerns. The only references appear to be WP:MILL coverage of the event of her tragic death. The mentioned award is given to over 10 otherwise low-profile individuals per year. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete as Nom says. No other source of notability found. She was a heroine; may she rest in peace.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:21, 5 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. bd2412 T 23:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zach McKelvie[edit]

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

Lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and also fails to meet any of the hockey notability criteria at WP:NHOCKEY. Being all-conference is not grounds for notability. He played only 104 games in the AHL, where he scored only 5 points, and then became an assistant or associate head coach at Army. None of these show notability. Papaursa (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — McKelvie falls well short of the 200-game minimum WP:NHOCKEY describes. For that reason, we need to access him based on GNG and I cannot find enough in-depth, secondary sources on him to say he meets even that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:09, 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. Tone 17:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Advisors Group[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NCORP.

Having just cleared up after a Sock User:Abdullah.Mhairat who was obsessed with Jawad Jalal Abbassi, the founder of AAG, and seeing a bunch of WP:SPA's as the principal contributors to this article I'm unable to see this as anything but paid spam written by stale socks.

Special:Contributions/Engolob

Special:Contributions/Anotinghamb & User:Anotinghamb/sandbox

Special:Contributions/BayanQJ

with a contribution by User:Marthadandridge a sock of User:Slowking4

Cabayi (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is one source available which gives some details,[8] although others are simply passing mentions. Subject lacks enough coverage in multiple reliable sources. Lorstaking (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 7 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infinifilm[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE; WP:NOTCATALOG. No evidence of notability. See multiple other similar discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magnetic Video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Artisan Entertainment video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twilight Time releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, etc, etc. --wooden superman 15:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 16:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because no strong delete argument has been put forward. Current content of the article is dominated by a list of releases but Infinifilm is a DVD authoring method and my WP:BEFORE search indicates there are enough sources that the article can be improved to cover more of the details of the format. ~Kvng (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But you'd be okay with removing the list of releases? --wooden superman 14:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:44, 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. Tone 17:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Translink (U) Ltd[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:ORGCRITE, no coverage. DferDaisy (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a local-market distributor needs to establish notability independently of the companies whose products it handles. The current article doesn't achieve that. Searches find an Africa Outlook profile piece built around quotes from the company's sales director. Although that might serve as a secondary supporting reference, I don't see it as sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. There is also a brief 2001 item about opposition to a development plan. While these verify the subject as a company going about its business, I don't see WP:NCORP as being met. AllyD (talk) 08:48, 7 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amber McWilliams[edit]

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

Lacking significance because her roles were minor anyway before her death this year, also the article may be lacking coverage. Sheldybett (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article inadequately describes her. She was a PHD graduate and lecturer at Auckland University, made significant contributions in her field and was recognized as such by her peers - should easily meet the notability requirements. NealeFamily (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 13:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure there's lots of other things she did in her life but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia if there are no good sources for it. The only reference in the article is a "Death notice in the New Zealand Herald" that anyone can get after they die and I couldn't find anything better. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even in a very rudimentary Google search you will find more detailed bibliographical data from two university websites and several literary ones as well. As her career spans pre-internet a more detailed search of library material will add to the list. NealeFamily (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is this after death bio from her workplace (page 8), but that doesn't establish notability. Doubtful that she was ever notable as a child actress. IMDB and wikipedia list the same two acting roles. Half of the actors on The New Adventures of Black Beauty don't have a wikipedia article and many of them probably had more roles than she did. It's safe to assume there's nothing to establish notability pre-internet just like there's nothing during the other half of her life and after death. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2018 World U23 Wrestling Championship. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 World U23 Wrestling Championships – Men's Greco-Roman 82 kg[edit]

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

I can't establish that this meets the notability criteria for sporting competitions or GNG. There does not appear to be the coverage to support it. Boleyn (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the competition page as per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTMIRROR. I have also bundled quite a few of these pages here too Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 World U23 Wrestling Championships – Women's freestyle 76 kg. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 13:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as was done at the other, larger, AfD. As I said there, if this were a senior-level championship, it should be kept, but it's not. Redirect is appropriate, however, per WP:ATD. Smartyllama (talk) 14:37, 3 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Creepy Line[edit]

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

Subject lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the film has just been released there are not many references or reviews yet. Please can this article have a stay of execution for a couple of weeks, then if not notable it can go.John a s (talk) 08:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFILM notability guidelines. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it needs at least 2 full reviews in reliable sources Atlantic306 (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As of 21 November article has links to 5 reviews, please check if this meets WP:NFILM guideline.John a s (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs the analysis of the review sources that were added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just wanted to note that of the sources I added, only one could be easily identified as a review. The sourcing is about the film, but because of the film topic there is discussion that kind of goes a bit beyond just talking about the documentary. TBH, it would be pretty funny if this was kept based on these sources since they're all sources I found... using Google. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as references to significant coverage in reliable sources coverage have been added to the article as above, such as Vanity Fair, The Edge, and Epoch Times so that WP:GNG is passed and there is no longer a need for deletion, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while not all the refs/reviews are suitable there are sufficient to warrant retention and demonstrate notability under NFILM. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:25, 7 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Ryerson[edit]

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

Non-notable Titanic passenger. No significant coverage outside of this single event. –dlthewave ☎ 22:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. W C M_email 22:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and perhaps create a joint article with husband Arthur Larned Ryerson, the Ryerson (company), in their day known as Ryerson Steel. Article just need s sourcing. Our dysfunctional PRESENTISM leaves us with many articles like this one and Ryerson (company), we have a coverage deficit on historic manufacturing companies and on the families who owned America in the Gilded Age. It is highly improbable that any of the millionaires on the Titanic lack sufficient sources to support notability; what we lack are editors working on history articles. Moreover, having articles on Titanic survivors is user friendly. These articles get large numbered of page views, our readers want this sort of info to be here . they just do. They share this interest with the media, which runs stories on the Ryersons like this one Cooperstown has connection to the sinking of the Titanic .E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly, given the wealth, she continued to get press coverage for things like building a grand mansion, and having a dramatic wedding and second marriage. A very modest WP:HEY expanding article. Like many survivors, she got coverage for the rest of her life, much of it mentions that she was a a survivor. My argument is that when there is a lot of coverage it makes you notable, especially when some of it is related to an event with the kind of enduring public fascination that the Titanic still has.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing that is available, if not in article, including the sourcing in books like Don Lynch's Titanic: An Illustrated History, her role discussed in this: [9]] review of the book in the New York Times, carries her past WP:SIGCOV. As the New York Times said in 1997, Yikes! That Famous Old Boat Is Sinking Yet Again.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak-Keep (Comments) As an article just barely scrapes by WP:GNG in my opinion. I am with E.M.Gregory I really don't know why Dlthewave wants to remove all these historic persons of interest and not only that, some persons of interest have already been deleted it seems without regards for a correct redirect. This is just turning into systematic destruction surrounding articles about POIs in regards to the Titanic, Govvy (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She apparently was an "honored benefactress" of the American Memorial Hospital at Rheims[10], famous for her "social eccentrities"[11] and took part in the legal process after the Titanic sank [12], so I do not think it's fair to say that it is just a single event. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:23, 7 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. Tone 17:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hevger Ibrahim[edit]

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

No indication of notability; none of the sources covers Ibrahim in any detail. The content is promotional and not supported by the cited sources. Huon (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nom says, there aren't any sources (either in article or in a BEFORE sweep) that actually cover the subject himself in detail. There doesn't seem to be one stand-out redirect target, and thus Delete is the best option. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence for significant coverage. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:32, 7 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. Academic Challenger (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Verb List[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a verb guide. WP:NOT. JC7V (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Ajf773 (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not an article. Maybe simplewiki would be interested in this. Natureium (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ajf773. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per norm and Ajf773. PlotHelpful (talk) 07:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not really an article; also there are no obvious inclusion/exclusion criteria Spiderone 13:02, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed Shahid[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer and political organizer, not properly sourced as notable. As always, writers and organizers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but the references here aren't cutting it in terms of getting him over WP:GNG: the media coverage here comprises glancing namechecks of his existence in articles about other things, not coverage about him, and the only references that are about him to any non-trivial degree are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (e.g. an Instagram post). This is not how you source a political organizer as notable enough for an article: he needs to be the subject of media coverage, not just have his name show up in news articles about other subjects that aren't him, to get over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 07:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~ I have added two books as references, one of which has a chapter called "Waleed Shahid and Corbin Trent - A Tea Party of the Left?" I would not call some of the news coverage "glancing namechecks of his existence" - major news sources, including The Guardian, which is UK/Australia, devote several paragraphs to the activist group he co-founded, quote what Shahid has said, and comment on it. Definitely meets WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the books is a very brief mention in a children's book; the other - see my comment below - is not INDEPENDENT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Devoting paragraphs to the group is not the same thing as devoting paragraphs to him as an individual, and quoting what he has said does not contribute to notability at all. He has to personally be the subject of a source before it helps GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In one of the books mentioned by User:RebeccaGreen, Shahid is definitely personally the subject of the chapter. I also think the articles cited are not only reliable WP:GNG but single him out personally as a leader who is notable figure in the movement (whether it be the organization he co-founded, or the organizations he helped 'organize'). I realize the articles aren't only about Shahid but are also about his (and others') activities, but the frequencies of the reports indicate to me that he is a notable individual and recognized by the media as such Perplextase (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but please look at comment below. The chapter/book seem not to be not WP:INDEPENDENT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I've removed the Instagram reference because it wasn't serving any purpose. He is referenced and written about in many sources, but I see what you mean: he is often cited as a spokesperson for a given campaign or organization, and usually the article is about that movement. There are other references, however, including bios, an interview, a book chapter, and articles devoting some personal time on him. I think the many articles referencing Shahid do demonstrate his notoriety. Rather than "glancing namechecks", they show the media consistently singles him out as notable (by not only taking his statement, but by reporting on what he tweets) ^[1] Perplextase (talk) 01:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Waleed+Shahid%22&tbm=nws

~~Keep~~ While I agree with the nom that most of the citations are of insufficient depth, and that mere-mentions or quotes from him as a spokesperson do not constitute significant coverage, the book The Next Republic: The Rise of a New Radical Majority appears to devote significant coverage to the subject in particular, and provides enough coverage to justify notability alongside the large quantity of more trivial coverage.striking vote per E.M. Gregory's argument, no new vote at this thime _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)01:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete. A lot of brief mentions of this political campaign staffer doing ordinary campaign stuff, like founding a short-lived PAC, AllOfUs a stub that should probably be merged into Justice Democrats, as the PAC was. At a glance, The Next Republic: The Rise of a New Radical Majority, the only INDEPTH source, looks like a strong source. Problem is that it is a compilation of D. D. Guttenplan's coverage of the 2016 campaign for The Nation. Waleed Shahid was also writing about that campaign for The Nation. It would be useful to see some SIGCOV of Shahid in a publication that Shahid doesn't work for.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looking closer, as Perplextase points our above, many of the hits merely quote him for the campaign or organization that he is a paid, professional spokesman for. This sort of citation does not support notability. The Guttenplan book, the only SIGCOV I can find, is not WP:INDEPENDENT Fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources merely quote him (sometimes in his capacity as an official) but not all. There is SIGCOV which is independent from articles in the Gaurdian and from ABC -- WP:N specifies that the main subject of the article doesn't need to be the person in question. Is there some reason the Guttenplan book isn't considered independent? Perplextase (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further, on account of WP:BIO I've reevaluated how non-trivial these references are, as Shahid is not trivially mentioned in these articles but rather referenced as a principal mover of the organization or movement in question (which are themselves the subjects of these articles). WP:BIO goes on to say that if the coverage is not in depth, then "then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"; and AFAIK Shahid isn't professionally linked to CNN/ABC/Gaurdian/Intercept/WP or any of the others (while he is certainly linked to other not listed publications such as the Nation). Perplextase (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perplextase, I am always willing to change my opinion when presented with persuasive evidence. If you have time, it might be useful if you would bring and "quote" on this page 4 or 5 of the most persuasive passages that you see as SIGCOV, with links to the articles. Yow are under no obligaiton to do so, of course, but it is the sort of thing that persuades other editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes, so the persuasiveness of this evidence I think depends on how trivial the many small references to Shahid are. I think they're not trivial insofar as these articles in question concern directly, if not Shahid himself, the organizations he lead. Further substantiating Shahid's presence as a figure head for a given movement(s) and notable as such are some articles covering him including ABC and the Guardian. (And again I'm not sure why the book The New Republic is not independent SIGCOV). I realize you've requested quotes, but I find the snippets out of context to obscure the issue, but here are links I think demonstrate what I mean: abc and the guardian. I think this definition of non-trivial from WP:BIO is helpful too: "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail. " -- I think Shahid is closely related to the content of the published works, even when it's not his name or agency explicitly, and from WP:N: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. ". Perplextase (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that book in question is entitled The Next Republic: The Rise of a New Radical Majority and is unrelated to The New Republic magazine.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted the quesiton about whether the material in the book is INDEPENDENT of Shahid at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, not notable in his own right. It's in the nature of political staffers to be mentioned here or there as a trabant. Such coverage is not sufficient to establish notability. -- Oisguad (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked at the coverage in the ABC and Guardian sources and I came away knowing nothing about the person apart from the fact he is a muslim and feels frightened. Neither article says anything about him with the exception of these quotes and the fact that he is the co-founder of All of us. Neither article deemed it necessary to give any biographical information, there is nothing in-depth about the coverage of him. As pointed out the sources mention him because he has a job as spokeperson for different organisations. Even the interviews he gave are not about him. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:15, 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. Tone 17:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ST Andromedae[edit]

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

Failure to meet notability criteria in WP:NASTRO. It exists just as a database entry. Psyluke (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NASTCRIT. Not naked eye, not discovered before 1850, not in a catalogue of high historical importance, no popular coverage, no technical coverage specific to this star or a small number of stars including this one. There are several dozen papers and catalogues mentioning this star, but that turns out to be largely because it is a carbon star and Hipparcos star so it shows up in a lot of listings. As a relatively bright, at least at maximum, carbon star it seems like there should be enough material for an article but I couldn't come up with it. Lithopsian (talk) 19:55, 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. Tone 17:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RY Andromedae[edit]

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

Failure to meet notability criteria in WP:NASTRO. It exists just as a database entry. Psyluke (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NASTCRIT. Not naked eye, not discovered before 1850, not in a catalogue of high historical importance, no popular coverage, no technical coverage specific to this star or a small number of stars including this one (other than the brief report of its discovery: Trois nouvelles variables). I tried to expand the article and came up with virtually nothing except the bare facts of its existence. Lithopsian (talk) 19:51, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Payal Dev[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NSINGER so moved to draftspace as per WP:DRAFTIFY as an alternative to deletion after unreviewing as there seemed to have been an error and it should not have been reviewed as is. Article moved back without improvement or tagged as such by the original reviewer saying "take it to afd". they claim there are other sources out there but I could find nothing much to back up notabilty. The sources in the article are "Times of India" a passing mention, "First post" a passing mention, "Business standard" a very short WP:INTERVIEW picked up from a newsfeed with no analysis or thoughts from the unnamed interviwer (if there actually was one and not just rehashing what the subject sent in). I found nothing in a WP:BEFORE search that shows the subject meet WP:GNG as she WP:NSINGER criteria is not suggested to having been met in the article. I would have preferred to allow this to be incubated in draftspace but this has been refused. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I don't understand from where the nominator is getting the idea that draftifying a non-notable singer is a good practice. If somebody is failing on WP:Notability (music) then they are a non-notable musician which is technically a junk per WP:DRAFTIFY. See criteria 1a. It should be AfDed or Speedied. We don't have to wait for them to get notable. If we do then we will have more drafts than articles because every hour there are at least two articles created about bands or other musicians. Reason for draftifying by the nominator was "The sources are way too weak to show she meets WP:NSINGER". That looked like backdoor mechanism to delete an article, avoiding contest or discussion because the nominator thinks that the topic is not at all plausibly notable. So I moved the article back and requested AfD with edit summary "Take it to AfD. Draftification is not a backdoor route to deletion. See WP:DRAFTIFY.". It was not just "take it to afd" as mentioned above by the nominator. More of the related discussion took place on my talkpage. I don't think it is relevant now as this is a deletion discussion. However, I am able to find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources in English as well as in Indian languages, such as this from Zee News and this from Dainik Bhaskar (non-english). I will present other sources later today as they need translation and I am in hurry now. Hitro talk 16:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify clearly states one of the reasons for moving it is "2a. The page is obviously unready for mainspace. It does not meet WP:STUB; or it would have very little chance of survival at AfD; or it meets any speedy deletion criterion." I have bolded it to make it clearer why I moved it to draft. Hope this helps explain why I think it would have been better to have it incubated. This was not a back door to deletion but an alternative to deletion. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is the winner of Mirchi Music Awards and her song from Bajirao Mastani (soundtrack) has been placed in rotation on a major radio station of India, Radio Mirchi and others. Ultimately, winning Mirchi Music Award for Upcoming Female Vocalist of The Year and the album went on to win Mirchi Music Award for Album of The Year. That is something for WP:NSINGER. It is not clear and obvious that this can be taken as little chance of survival at AfD Hitro talk 10:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Meeting WP:NSINGER 9, 10, 11, 12 as mentioned above and can be verified at [13]. Multiple coverage in reliable sources covering the subject can be found at (includes two links that I mentioned above) [14] from Zee News , [15] and [16] from Dainik Bhaskar, [17] by United News of India, [18] by Editorial in RandM. There some other coverage from different sources that can be helpful in verification [19] , review of her music [20] on Rediff, [21] on Koimoi, [22] on NDTV. Apart form that, an article by Indo-Asian News Service was published on major national dailies of India including The Statesman (India) [23], Business Standard [24]. Interviews published on Deccan Chronicle and The Asian Age [25], [26] and [27], also on Daily News and Analysis [28].

This looks like meeting WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. At least it's not among those with little chance of survival at AfD;, it does merit a discussion. Hitro talk 10:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As it was (and still is) the article would have stood little chance of surviving AFD hence the move to draftspace to allow time to improve it. Such a shame that rather than adding these sources or tagging for improvement you moved it back to mainspace with the comment Take it to AfD. Draftification is not a backdoor route to deletion. what a waste of everyone's time. I will have a look at the sources when I get a moment. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- agreed with User:HitroMilanese -Hamim000000 (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Hamim000000 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dom from Paris. I'm so sick of these people who push things into article space before they are ready, then say "take it to AfD" and waste everyone's time rather than just doing the work in draft. There's no mention of awards in the article and no claim of notability. Deb (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:59, 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 redirect to Chris Stuckmann. Tone 17:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Impact: The Movies and Shows that Changed the World of Japanese Animation[edit]

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

Advertisement for a non-notable book. G11 was declined; the page may also qualify for WP:G5 deletion (created by a sock of FilmLover2016) but as one speedy has already been declined and there are non-minor contribs from others, posting here for discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is sourced to an interview and an ANN article that is actually just the Mango Media press release for the book. Though some personal bloggers here and there appear to have written brief reviews, WP:NBOOK excludes those kinds of sources for purposes of determining notability. Nominator is right to call this article an advertisement, as it only exists to promote the book, and Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion (WP:NOTPROMO). Bakazaka (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons as Bakazaka. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be be fine with changing it to a redirect to Chris Stuckmann. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:NBOOK, the earlier version seemed advertising as there were at least three references straight to the sale sites, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Chris Stuckmann as author and per WP:WITHIN. Information about the book can be summarized in his bio in a sentence or two as well as his Bibliography. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chris Stuckmann, as author, per WP:ATD-R and WP:WITHIN. Does not meet WP:GNG currently, possibly may be able to be expanded in the future. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (to Chris Stuckmann) - since there still seems a dispute over delete/redirect it seems reasonable to comment. Per WP:ATD-R there doesn't seem any reason to delete. That said, there doesn't seem sufficient reliable reviews to warrant a keep. I was going to add another couple of lines to Stuckman's article on it, but the title summarises the purpose of the book to such a degree that another couple of lines is purely duplicative. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chris Stuckmann per --Animalparty! and Nosebagbear. This keeps any useful information where a reader is most likely to be looking for it. Ifnord (talk) 17:43, 7 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lillian Cox[edit]

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

This is a clear case of WP:BIO1E. She got a brief spate of coverage for being an old driver, a little minor municipal recognition, and that's it. Once stripped of all the irrelevant filler material related to her driving, there's WP:NOPAGE here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:35, 30 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 she drove illegally as a kid, drove a sedan for 28 years, was America's oldest licensed driver, and remembered the price of gas from when she was young. There is nothing to preserve about this woman, including this WP:PERMASTUB. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – She came, she drove, she died. Her respectable age is not even enough to make the top 100 oldest Americans. Nothing to WP:PRESERVE. — JFG ^talk 00:11, 7 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. Academic Challenger (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fifth Freedom Flights[edit]

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

WP:NOTADIRECTORY and WP:TRIVIA. It is unlikely that this list will be kept complete and up-to-date due to the sheer number of flights and constant timetable/routing changes. Sekicho (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It falls afoul of both WP:NOTADIRECTORY and WP:TRIVIA. The list will never be close to complete or up to date is not an encyclopedic subject either way. - Ahunt (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 14:51, 30 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? 15:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-encyclopedic trivia. MilborneOne (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm mostly concernced with WP:NOTRAVEL issues.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTTRIVIA. Ajf773 (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 13:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTTRIVIA. Unencyclopedic ephemera.Charles (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not suitable for inclusion in wikipedia --DannyS712 (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think WP:NOTRAVEL applies since it's not anything that would ever be included in a travel guide, but it fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. SportingFlyer talk 19:18, 4 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 Moot. Per discussion below. Sandstein 12:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Women's anniversaries in 2019[edit]

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

WP:POV. Things which "deserve to be remembered"? I don't think this is the right way to add thousands of potential new articles to enwiki, with all things which relate to a subject and which happened 25, 50, 100, 250, ... years ago. We have timelines of women's rights, and if 1919 is an especially noteworthy year for women's rights then a separate article for women's rights in 1919 might at a stretch be a good subject, but this? Please no.

As far as I can tell, we have no other articles in this format (not in itself a reason for inclusion or deletion, just information). Fram (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Fram. Good to see you are still interested in articles about women. I may well have moved this article into mainspace a little too soon. I am in the process of expanding it and would have liked to continue my work. It is a result of discussions on the main talk pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Women in Green. There are, btw, similar pages, including 2019, November 30, etc. The year page was intended to be a basis for more detailed pages on the 12 months. We have many timelines of women but until now there have been no articles on the anniversaries to be commemorated. It seemed to me it was useful to bring them together and try to expand on events of 50, 100, 200 years ago, as well as on the dates of birth and death of famous women.--Ipigott (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article like 2019 has information on events in 2019, not events from 1919, 1819, ... I don't think we need yet another way to group events together, based on the rather trivial commonality that they happened X years ago. There is only a trivial reason to link together events which happend 50, 100 and 200 years ago, they don't have more in common than events that happened 51, 103 and 207 years ago,so being an anniversary is a rather trivial intersection. The events in 1919 are in many cases related to each other (or have similar causes), but that should be treated in an article about 1919 (or about women's rights after WWI), not in an article about 2019. And we should never editorialize on what should be remembered, celebrated, ... Fram (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change this page in a subpage of the WIR or WIG green project instead, then be my guest of course. It may be a handy tool to see what you can add to DYK or the "on this day" section on the mainspace, or a place to discuss missing subjects or things to be expanded. Fram (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From what you say, Fram, it seems to be the title that is bothering you most. Maybe it would go down better for a start as Women's events and developments in 1919. I must say, I am simply amazed at the lack of coverage of women in other sources relating to the year 1919. So we obviously need something along these lines, and not just as a tool to help with creating or expanding articles about women.--Ipigott (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a structural issue here. See List of historical anniversaries, for example – a rather strange page that's trying to capture all such events. There are going to be lots of centenaries in 2019 -- the Bauhaus, GCHQ, the Women's Engineering Society, &c. There should be some way of organizing and presenting this. Andrew D. (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a little bit almanacky, but encyclopedic and educational. I have attempted to address the POV and structural issues with a couple edits. Carrite (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's educational to have timelines, but what's educational about knowing what happened 150, 100 and 50 years ago in one list, which you can repeat every 25 or 50 years anyway? I can create Women's anniversaries in 1969, and include everything that belongs on this page but happened before 1969. And another one for 1994, and another one for 2069, and so on and so on. The possibilities are endless! We don't create articles for this year only, we create timeless articles. An article on what happened in 1919 (if 1919 has special meaning) is fine, an article for what happened 25, 50, 100, 200 years ago in 2019 is not. Fram (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are on the same page, Fram, and as things are developing, I think the article would be better as "Women's events and developments in 1919". For the time being, at least, I don't see any reason to write articles on the other years you mention. I'll go ahead and move it now which would be far more in line with Wikipedia practice. I really appreciate your advice.--Ipigott (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close - the page has been moved to Women's events and developments in 1919 and the rationales for deletion present no longer make sense. I suggest this be procedurally closed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem with such a close, we have articles on "year X in sport" and so on as well, so this is a valid (and valuable) topic now. Fram (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we move it to 1919 in women's history, which is the standard shape of title. PamD 10:36, 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 12:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden-measurements interpretation[edit]

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

This interpretation is not notable, since it was invented long after entanglement had been discovered and proven possible, has at no time in history seemed consistent with the possiblity of entanglement. — SvartMan (talk) (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 13:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SvartMan (talk • contribs)

Comment. The deletion rational is arguing that Hidden-measurement interpretation is wrong and foolish. This is not a valid reason to delete an article; as long as the topic receives significant coverage from reliable independent sources then it is a notable encyclopedic topic. From a cursory glance at this article's citations, this criteria appears to be met. That said, citations are used very inappropriately in this article, for example, the 35 inline citations in a row in the #History section are clearly excessive. Further, most of the sources are papers by the same authors; some of the sources even look like different versions of the same paper. These citations fail to provide a neutral point of view on the topic, instead promoting the work of this small group of researchers to excess. An expert needs to read the papers that are cited and see which ones actually support content in the article, removing the others.
Finally, if this interpretation of QM is clearly flawed, we need a criticisms section. Such a section, properly sources, will go a long way to combat the neutrality issues in the article. BenKuykendall (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, that one author that almost single-handledy wrote the Wikipedia page might well be one of the authors of that YouTube video / paper published in a few places with variations. Are any of the referenced sources reliable secondary sources that meet Wikipedia standards? Publishing the content in all these places obviously took more effort than just posting some text on pastebin and citing that from Wikipedia, but does it meet our [notability:WP:N] and [anti-originality standard|WP:NOR]? Pretty much the independent source I found on Google is a [Physics forum thread https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/hidden-measurements-interpretation.872340/] stating "Reading the paper, this interpretation just sounds like a roundabout way of saying measurement results are probabilistic," and unanimous consent that the paper proves no claim whatsoever. Irrespective of the actual verity of the paper, there seems to have been no public discussion of the material except for that Physics forum thread, the Wikipedia page and this deletion request. It's less notable than, for example, a false news piece. — SvartMan (talk) (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nomination does not advance a deletion rationale based on Wikipedia policy, but that said, the topic is not notable by our standards. All the sources in the article are primary (by Aerts or his co-authors). The same goes for the citations to the paper that supposedly introduced the idea: they are by Aerts, by people who repeatedly co-authored with him, or passing mentions. One of those co-authors actually called the idea "overlooked". This interpretation doesn't even make the list when physicists are surveyed about their favorites. When an interpretation of quantum mechanics is so obscure that nobody has argued why it must be wrong, then it's really obscure. XOR'easter (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on policy (not nom) a quick check can't find any independent sources 1. fails WP:GNG with zero independent secondary sources (they're all non-independent as collaborators per the article) 2. WP:TOOSOON / promotion - when there's secondaries it can be written. Widefox; talk 02:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Further, the include criteria at Minority interpretations of quantum mechanics should be checked to see if the current listing of this theory there should be removed (it isn't clear to me what the include criteria is, but if the review sources mentioned there don't include this - presumably not, else it would be a valid secondary here - then it should be removed). Widefox; talk 02:36, 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. Sandstein 12:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tickmill[edit]

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

Classic fail for WP:NCORP, and WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH References are all primary, press releases and churnalism scope_creep (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; promotional 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:50, 7 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 12:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global One Belt One Road Association Foundation[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. this claim from a separate draft is extremely questionable, to say the least. Paul_012 (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of notability or even existence. URL given as "Reference material" doesn't find it, even when searching for key words of name. Article seems confused about name, in any case. PamD 09:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment Found its homepage [29] Google search found this on UN ESCAP site: [30] (the foundation participation in an event). There seeems to be not much news coverage for the Chinese name of the foundation: [31] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a separate article at Global One Belt One Road Association. I initially thought that the author intended to present them as two different organisations (I hadn't AfDed the other yet because at least it had documents backing its existence), but now I'm not sure. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Other article now at AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global One Belt One Road Association. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I nominated the other article Paul mentioned for deletion and can find no significant coverage in reliable independent sources for either entity. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concur with comments listed above. Rogermx (talk) 13:54, 6 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. Academic Challenger (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice Olivier[edit]

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

Non-notable. Page was created on 12 October 2008‎ (five months after her death) by Olivestonem - this is clearly an obituary page created by a close relative who has no other edits on Wikipedia. It was tagged as an obituray for some time, but that tag was removed by an anonymous IP editor, who also removed an unreferenced tag despite the fact that the page has never had a single reference.

The article makes a number of claims to notability ("a noted entertainer", " Several newspaper accounts regarding her accomplishments have been published internationally", "Her ranking in Los Angeles fundraising community is well known") but my best endeavours searching have found nothing to back this up.

The article claims she was in the film version of My Fair Lady, but this doesn't pan out. According to IMDb, there was a Beatrice Grenough in My Fair Lady (see IMDb My Fair Lady (1964) Full Cast & Crew) but the part was uncredited. Grenough only has one other credit in IMDb, also uncredited (see Beatrice Grenough @ IMDB). If this is the same person (stage name, perhaps), it doesn't make for notability. At best, we have two bit parts played by uncredited actors and, in the stage version, also a bit part. An appearance on a TV talent show does not confer notability.

The Encyclopedia of Motion Picture Sound has no mention of Beatrice Olivier (though Beatrice Grenough is there). Emeraude (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find quite a few mentions of her in newspapers, but only local coverage of small-scale events: reports of her music school's concerts when she was 10, a report of a wedding where she sang songs, a meeting of a women's organisation where she provided the musical entertainment (and was claimed to be a "British television and radio performer"), and in a performance of My Fair Lady by the Westside Civic Light Opera at the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium - and similar. There are ads for Mickey Katz's variety revues which she performed in, as the article states. Another notice of a forthcoming meeting says that she was a "movie and operatic star, known and acclaimed for her performances on European and American stages", but if the European stages were like the American ones, the only coverage is likely to be local there, too. There seems to be no evidence about whether she is the Beatrice who was in the film of My Fair Lady, but even if she was, as the Nom says, she doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced bio of someone claimed to be a notable entertainer, for whom I can find no significant mentions at all in WP:RELIABLE sources. Neiltonks (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete news archives have some coverage validating the claim that she was a professional entertainer with a modest career in theater and performing at fundraisers (Soprano to Entertain Sisterhood Los Angeles Times (1923-1995); Los Angeles, Calif. [Los Angeles, Calif]05 Aug 1973: ws8.) in teh Los Angeles area. but I can't find enough to justify a page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any WP:RS and she fails WP:MUSICBIO. PlotHelpful (talk) 10:16, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in America (2017 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 12:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This film meets the General notability guideline, as it has been covered substantially in multiple independent reliable international news publications. I have added these to the article. DferDaisy (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article has been improved with the addition of references that show that the film has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and therefore passes WP:GNG, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient sources have been shown to exist and some have been added. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:29, 5 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 speedy delete. Speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G5. KTC (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Roszak[edit]

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

Subject lived a long time, which is the only reason this page was created. Not notable, though she had a role saving some kids in the holocost. Legacypac (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC) I've requested a speedy delete after I started this. Legacypac (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:14, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator, who neglected to close this. Only delete !vote has been stricken. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Andrade (fighter)[edit]

Withdraw from nominator

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

~~Subject is a MMA fighter. Not notable MMA fighter. Fails WP:NMMA.~~ CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ As per nominator.PRehse (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-read the Bellator cut-off date it should be Keep.PRehse (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:NMMA with 2 Bellator fights in 2009 (it was a top tier organization then), a UFC fight in 2000, and a PRIDE fight in 2001. Papaursa (talk) 18:57, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 12:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solarwall[edit]

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

Unreferenced article. I failed to find any reliable independent source - I don't think https://twitter.com/hashtag/solarwall is acceptable. Maproom (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I must question how hard you actually looked, based off a quick Google search... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I've only just recently come back to editing after a bit of a break, but it seems with just a little ref work that there are a number of third party reliable sources for such an award winning product... feel free to tell me if I'm wrong... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - References have been improved. The R&D 100 award, presented by R&D Magazine, identifies the 100 most significant newly introduced research and development advances in multiple disciplines-- hence this was considered a notable technical breakthrough. Oliveleaf4 (talk) 11:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 13:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At minimum this article is heavily biased and promotional, so that needs to be fixed first. Skirts89 (talk) 16:38, 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 Close and reverted article back to before being hijacked. Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yoel Adler[edit]

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

BLP1E and GNG fail. Severe WP:BLPCRIME issues, as well as NPOV and BLP. Article built form press releases from around his arrest for a few days. He was never charged - let alone convicted. There seems to be a more notable individual with the same name who is the CEO of toiletry company ([32]) who does not appear to be connected. continuing coverage for this Adler is mentioned to blurb mentions such as - here - which mentions his arrest for a few days and subsequent mental breakdown - and that's it. Icewhiz (talk) 10:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP of a man who was arrested and held by police for 3 weeks on suspicion of being involved in a series of politically motivated crimes (arson, a deadly shooting.) However he was released at the end of three weeks, and never charged with a crime. delete per WP:BLPCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual, only known for being arrested and subsequently released without charge. That's not enough on its own (it happens to many people), and there's no other claim to notability. Neiltonks (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Because, as the article states, “police failed to find evidence against him”; in other words, he is not connected to what would make him notable and this is therefore a BLP issue on an innocent man.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close and revert back to Sicarii Emass brought to my attention that this was not the original topic of the article. Seems the change was done under the veil of “boldly” cleaning a mess, then attempting to speedily delete the altered article without community consensus. It is unfair for us to have a discussion on something that, as Nableezy demonstrates, actually has a notability case, but was changed to a BLP without reason.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the only reason for this article's existence is that it was ported from an article that might have been written on a non-existent subject. The subject is non-notable and it's very clear that this fails basic GNG criteria. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been completely denatured yesterday. Here is the source I used for the original article, found in the the Globe and Mail's April 28, 1989 edition. While I do agree that an article on "Yoel Adler" fails WP:BLPCRIME and WP:GNG, an article on the terrorist group Sicarii certainly passes WP:GNG. Emass100 (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Globe and Mail image linked above is not from 2018 - it refers to Yitzhak Shamir as PM. Shamir died in 2012. He was last PM in 1992. Can't find a date on it - but it is probably from the same newscycle as the arrest (prior to the release). As for Sicarii - no one was charged, I think, and they were also for the most part a single news cycle name.Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. In my haste, I wrote the year wrong. The article is from 1989. Emass100 (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Revert and move back to Sicarii (1989) - the transformation of this article from something on a terror group that is covered in a number of source (will list shortly) into a BLP that obviously fails BLPCRIME and then speedy deletion request by the user who made it a BLP failing article is obscene. Truly obscene. But, the acts of terror against Jewish publishers and academics and politicians that were not sufficiently Zionist for this group to abide are in fact covered in a number of sources. Among them:

Ian S. Lustick (5 July 2018). Unsettled States, Disputed Lands: Britain and Ireland, France and Algeria, Israel and the West Bank-Gaza. Cornell University Press. p. 411,415,555. ISBN 978-1-5017-3194-5. (can see the notes on 555, the index references them earlier)
Robert J. Kelly; Jess Maghan (1998). Hate Crime: The Global Politics of Polarization. SIU Press. p. 92. ISBN 978-0-8093-2210-7.
"1990 Global Terrorism: Middle East Overview (US Department of State)". Federation Of American Scientists – Science for a safer, more informed world. 1990-06-18. Retrieved 2018-12-01. In early January, a Jewish extremist group known as the Sicarii claimed responsibility for planting a dummy grenade under the car of the wife of Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Peres. The Sicarii also threatened attacks on four Israeli members of Parliament because of their support for a Palestinian peace demonstration. Israeli authorities arrested a suspected leader of the group in June.

That was just in the few minutes I spent looking. There are others I dont have ready access to at 3 am, but, there are numerous contemporary newspaper reports about this as well. Revert back to the article that was about a group, and not the purposefully created deletion-bait that was brought here. nableezy - 09:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the 3 is PRIMARY. The 2 others are a notes mention and a single paragraph - failing INDEPTH. Far from clear the 1990 group (if it was one - it seems this was a flyer/phone name used briefly by Kach), as opposed to the 70CE or the unrelated modern Haredi group passes GNG - secondary sources cover them very briefly, if at all, since there isn't much to wrtie.

In any this is not as simple as move - the current content should be deleted or revdelled at the very least. The assertions made here towards an innocent BLP can not be left in the article history.Icewhiz (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Immediate procedural close as a flagrant abuse of process. The article should be moved back to the previous name, with the original content, and allowed to develop with the sources that are obviously available. If someone then wants to AfD it, they are free to do so in the normal way. Re-writing an article as a completely different topic, and then nominating that for deletion is unacceptable. In my view, this dishonest behaviour merits a block, but I am not sufficiently familiar with the necessary processes to take it any further. --NSH001 (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@NSH001: I strongly suggest you strike multiple claims above - my sole involvement with this article has been to nominate it to AfD.Icewhiz (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The old version of the article, when it was about the Sicarii group and not Yoel Adler himself, read In March 1989, the Jerusalem Post described the Sicarii as "the most sought-after under group in Israel today" Originally, the article didn't mention Yoel Adler at all [33]. I must say that I have a hard time understanding why the article was rewritten to be about Yoel Adler and then put up for deletion using WP:BLPCRIME. ImTheIP (talk) 15:38, 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. Sandstein 12:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GBB (South Korean band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. GBB has not ranked on South Korea's Gaon Music Chart or on the Billboard K-pop Hot 100. The group has not garnered significant coverage to establish notability, and a search for Korean sources yields routine coverage. ℯ xplicit 07:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Doesn’t meet notability guidelines. Alexanderlee (talk) 08:21, 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. Sandstein 12:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blockchain Alliance[edit]

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

Repeatedly draftified and re-created. Previous comments by User:Boleyn included, "This reads like an advert written by the company - it is not ready for the mainspace until the many issues have been addressed." Does not appear to be notable. Dot not appear to be the same entity as the one whose website is at https://blockchainalliance.org/. Paul_012 (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no real claim to notability. The list of "refences" (not in-line refs) appended at the end aren't reliable sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:37, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 12:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Intelligent Currency Encryption[edit]

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

A not-yet-deployed product by a company without an article; the existing references don't appear to be independent. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of technology-related deletion discussions. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 21:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of computing-related deletion discussions. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 21:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have been monitoring the DICE as I am a researcher for security and privacy related issues since its first publication in German and Austrian media but also in political debates.

The product is prototyped and from my state of knowledge as of January 2018, the Republic of South Africa prepared a pilot project with the DICE.

I am sorry if the references are from a common point of view, but during my research, I followed the technical and reliable documentation that I found to be more relevant than others. Also, being featured in the Keesing Journal is :like a peerage in the industry (I know it because I wrote my essay on new security technologies that could be a risk to our privacy, like the DICE).

The featuring in the Keesing Journal can be confirmed in the issue 49 preview on their website here: https://www.keesingtechnologies.com/keesing-journal/single-issue/ but also from the content preview here: :https://www.keesingtechnologies.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Content.pdf .

As for articles, there are plenty of them all across the German-speaking media landscape with different sentiments (just use google.de and search for EDAQS dice) and they include very big financial news portals (finanzen.net), :reputable news sources like (Trend.at, futurezone.at and orf.at) and even articles on websites from political parties (Pirates). I believe this topic should be covered as it is very up-to-date with a lot of new technologies and :blockchain solutions appearing here.

I am for keeping it on Wikipedia, not because I wrote the article (I also asked a moderator to review it at that time), but because it meets all requirements from your policies. In any case I am fine with any decision that is reasonable and considers the above facts. For the case this helps, we could also follow up and add more references and fundamentals that make it a more wiki-worthy article. Note: I've added new independent news articles and references as well as comments to the article.

Amy research (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Amy research (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources identified by Amy research meet notability threshold e.g. [34], [35], [36]. ~Kvng (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The claim that "existing references don't appear to be independent" is not clear to me. Could someone (perhaps someone who understands German) try to evaluate them? BenKuykendall (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what Google Translate gave me, I can't determine if they meet WP:RS but they do appear to be independent. The claim that they are not is not substantiated by the nom. ~Kvng (talk) 21:37, 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 12:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delma (Swiss watchmaker)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NORG, the only coverage I could find online (or in the article's references) is in industry-PR outlets which are not RS (I searched in English, German, and French). In 2017, the subject competed for the Grand Prix d'Horlogerie de Geneve but did not win. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Did find some proper coverage of Delma in one site (https://monochrome-watches.com/delma-blue-shark-ii-3000m-dive-watch-hands-on-price/), but little else. The brand has been around since 1924 apparently according to a website that described its Baselworld entry. Still, don't believe it really meets WP:NORG either. JamesMatthews01 (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Include: Brand and company have been around for over 90 years, there's a lot of coverage in Swiss Newspapers (in German) on the brand, it is also part of key institutions of the swiss watch industry. Based on the argument of not finding much online other than industry outlets would lead to the deletion of many entries in the swiss watch brand category. Should have a common ground based on which brands should feature or not in the category. Drew17 LnG (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Drew17 LnG (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Could you provide citations to, or better yet, scans of the coverage in Swiss newspapers? I'm fluent in German so translation isn't an issue. Offline sources are fair game, but we need to be able to verify and evaluate them. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Press coverage in German appears significant. See in particular this article. 2.34.241.247 (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Solothurner Zeitung article appears significant, as well as this piece in Grenchner Tagblatt. The only caveats are that both of these appear to be local papers owned by the same publishing company, and I'm thus unsure whether or not they qualify as sufficiently reliable, per ORGCRITE's audience criteria: The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.. A lot of the other hits on the google news search appear to have only matched "Uhr", as opposed to "Delma" and thus don't appear to actually be coverage of the subject. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill Just be aware that while an article may appear to be "significant", it must also be "intellectually independent" - see WP:ORGIND and the section on "Dependent coverage". As such, the Solothurner Zeitung is classic churnalism, based on information provided by the company and supported by interview/quotations from owners. Now that (hopefully) you see the pattern, the Grenchner Tagblatt article fails for the same reasons. WP:NCORP was tightened up earlier this year to specifically exclude these types of pseudo-neutral churnalistic references. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of this company. References either fail to provide in-depth information on the company, failing WP:CORPDEPTH or are not intellectually independent and fail WP:ORGIND. Topic therefore fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:ORG; significant RS coverage not found. Promotionalism only. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:07, 6 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 WP:BOLDly redirected to WUPW#News operation. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 06:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards won by WUPW[edit]

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

Non-notable list article; no references; hasn't been updated since 2009(?) Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to article on WUPW.Vorbee (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WUPW. Unsourced content is not suitable for merging. Ajf773 (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected This didn't need a nomination; as WUPW merged their news op with WTOL several years ago, this is an abandoned article and it's doubtful anyone would have objected to a basic merge of the info into one sentence, which I have done per WP:BOLD. Nate • (chatter) 06:11, 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. Academic Challenger (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fawzal number[edit]

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

Insufficient coverage in reliable sources and academic literature in general, does not meet WP:GNG. The concept appears to have been pioneered in this paper, which according to Google Scholar has been cited 5 times. Based on the content of the article and the abstracts of the relevant papers, it is unclear whether the term "Fawzal number" has ever actually been used outside of wikipedia, even in the papers that developed the concept. It also appears very likely that the initial editor has a conflict of interest, seeing as their username is "Fawzala", and the author of the papers about this concept is A. Fawzal. Comments in edit summaries would appear to indicate that this concept is part of their graduate thesis, which hasn't even been defended yet. Maybe this will one day be the cornerstone of fan cooling theory, but for now it appears to be much WP:TOOSOON. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not seeing the reliable source coverage to demonstrate notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient uptake in the literature to demonstrate widespread use or notability. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not enough coverage from independent sources available. Kraose (talk) 03:44, 3 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 speedy keep. Player clearly meets NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Al-Bargan[edit]

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

One sentence "article" that doesn't explain significance or contribution to sport and no real expansion since creation Snickers2686 (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the Arabic-language Wikipedia article at https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%B7%D8%A7%D9%86_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%86 and the Persian-language article at https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%B7%D8%A7%D9%86_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%86 The articles mention a number of teams for which he played, and I suspect that at least one is part of a fully-professional league. When dealing with an athlete from a non-English speaking country, a search in the athlete's country's language is always a good idea. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A rough translation follows:
Sultan Albarqan
Birth certificate
Full name Sultan Abdullah Al-Bargan
Birthday February 15, 1983 (35 years)
Hometown of Saudi Arabia
Height 1.79 m (5 ft. 10 in. 1/2 in.)
Midfielder position
Youth clubs
???? - 2000 Al Hilal Football Club
Professional clubs *
Years Clubs Play † (Goal) †
Al-Hilal Football Club 2000-2011
2008-2009 → Al-Taftaq Football Club Saudi Arabia (loan)
2010 → Al Fattah Football Club Saudi Arabia (loan) 7 (0)
2011-2014 al-Attalaf Football Club Saudi Arabia
2014-2015 Saudi Arabia Al Shalah Football Club
2015-2016 Saudi Arabian Football Federation
The number of games and goals is limited to domestic league games.
Sultan Al-Bargan (born February 15, 1983) is a Saudi Arabian footballer.

The clubs featured include Saudi Arabia's Al-Aradi Football Club, Al-Hilal Football Club, Al-Taftaq Football Club Saudi Arabia, Al-Taftaq Football Club Saudi Arabia, Al-Taftaq Football Club Saudi Arabia, and Al-Shaala Football Club Saudi Arabia.

Comment. Similar biographical information can be found at https://us.soccerway.com/players/sultan-al-bargan/66861/ and perhaps on other football sites as well. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has appearances in the Saudi Professional League, which is a WP:FPL, for multiple clubs. Passes WP:NFOOTY on those grounds. I've added his Soccerway profile to the page, as well. 21.colinthompson (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article about professional footballer who was a regular starter in Al-Hilal's side that played in the 2006 AFC Champions League group stage and the side which reached the semi-finals of the 2010 AFC Champions League. It's difficult for an English-speaking editor like myself to find online coverage to satisfy the GNG, but I suspect Arabic-language sources are there as this footballer was a top-flight player in Saudi Arabia. Jogurney (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:FOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 15:39, 3 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, withdrawn. (@Shibbolethink: As there are no dissenting opinions, it would have been ok to close yourself, but if you're uncomfortable with the procedure it's also perfectly ok to wait for an admin or uninvolved editor to do it for you.) —David Eppstein (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Lehrs[edit]

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

Does not meet basic WP:PERSON notability guidelines as Lehrs never received any awards or recognition outside of Waldorf education which is itself an esoteric and fringe movement. Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR guidelines as multiple independent secondary or tertiary sources outside of the anthroposophical or waldorf education movement do not cite or note his work. Article has only 1or 2 legitimate sources discussing Lehrs, and they are fringe publications by anthroposophists. This gentleman would be notable on a Anthroposophy-specific wiki, but that is not what this is. This gentleman might be notable in a German-wiki, but that is not what this is. This is the english wikipedia and Ernst Lehrs did not live a notable enough life to have his own article on it. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 02:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, withdrawn per RebeccaGreen! Q: Do I have to wait for an admin or uninvolved editor to close this, or can I do it myself?--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 16:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you! I don't have experience of opening or closing AfDs, but from what I have seen on others, I think that if there are no Delete votes, you can close it yourself. More experienced editors may be able to confirm if this is the case. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ANYBIO #3 Agathoclea (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the nominator has misinterpreted WP:NACADEMIC, where #1 is "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." (my emphasis) - it does not say that the impact has to be outside the scholarly discipline, in this case "outside of the anthroposophical or Waldorf education movement". Also, the nominator refers to Waldorf education as "an esoteric and fringe movement", and yet the Wikipedia article says that "it has become the largest independent school movement in the world, with about 1,150 independent Waldorf schools, about 1,800 kindergartens and 646 centers for special education located in 75 countries" = hardly "fringe". The previous voter refers to WP:ANYBIO, where #3 states "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." We also have WP:BASIC, "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject".

So, what evidence is there of Lehrs' impact in the field of Steiner education and anthroposophy, and/or of significant coverage? On the website Kulturimpuls, which researches anthroposophy, there is a biography of Lehrs (the first reference in the article). As the text can't be copied to translate it through Google Translate, I'll have to take a bit longer to read and understand it. This webpage [37] on a wesbite about the cobblestone memorial plaques to victims of Nazism has information about Lehrs (including his birth name, Leopold Edgar - he took his father Ernst's name), about his mother, and about another Waldorf teacher. The book Between Occultism and Nazism: Anthroposophy and the Politics of Race in the Fascist Era [38] has a paragraph about Lehrs and his position in the school after Hitler became chancellor. Lehrs left Germany and ended up in Britain; there are articles in UK newspapers in 1940, 1941 and 1942 about talks he gave about Steiner philosophy, which mention his work in Germany and the work he was then doing at a school in Aberdeenshire. The Observer newspaper published a review of Lehrs' book Man or Matter in 1951; the journal Philosophy published a full two-page review in 1952; an article in The German Quarterly in 1969 on 'Goethe and Modern American Poets' mentions that T.S. Eliot was converted by Lehrs' Man or Matter (the source for this is Eliot's address 'Goethe as the Sage'). Even in sources in English, available online, there is enough coverage to say that he does meet WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. The article could be improved by adding these references and incorporating more of the information available in these sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only other thing I wanted to say was regarding what you said about Waldorf schools being mainstream. You're certainly right that there are many of these schools around the world these days, but I think your estimation of them no longer being a fringe movement is misplaced. What makes something a fringe movement is not the quantity of its practitioners or wide spread nature of its outposts, but the perception and reality of its tenets as compared to mainstream ideas. Acupuncturists are everywhere these days, from the corner shop to the outlet mall just outside of town, probably numbering in the hundreds of thousands if not millions worldwide.

This quantity of practitioners doesn't make them any less of a fringe movement, because what Acupuncturists believe is still fringe science. The same is true of Waldorf schools. If the central tenets of Waldorf science education are still that animals evolved from human spiritual manifestations and that the four kingdoms of nature are "mineral, plant, animal, and man," then Waldorf education is still a fringe theory. But I think you're right that the subject of this proposal, Mr. Lehrs, is notable enough given his widespread coverage in non-Waldorf news sources and widely-read print media as you've outlined above. So I still withdraw my nomination. I just wanted to clarify that particular point! Cheers, and thank you for the good work finding sources.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I would not call either the science or the education mainstream, but the history, numbers and spread of the schools mean they are a fairly well established alternative education. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point of correction: #3 is "The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication." - saves a load of effort of analysing google book results. In this case I looked at the German DNB as he was German. Agathoclea (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 02:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 02:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 02:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 02:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guenther Wachsmuth[edit]

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

Does not meet basic WP:PERSON notability guidelines as Wachsmuth never received any awards or recognition outside of the Anthroposophical Society which is itself an esoteric and fringe group. Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR guidelines as multiple independent secondary or tertiary sources outside of the anthroposophical movement do not cite or note his work. Article has only 1 source, and it is a fringe publication by an anthroposophist admirer. This gentleman would be notable on a Anthroposophy-specific wiki, but that is not what this is. This is the english wikipedia and Guenther Wachsmuth did not live a notable enough life or die a notable enough death to have his own article. --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 06:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting individual but not featured in any reliable sources so delete is the correct thing to do per policy. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 02:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 02:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 02:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 02:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 02:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources just do not hold up notability. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:28, 7 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. Academic Challenger (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bolsonaro family[edit]

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

Not seeing any real notability outside one member of the family Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is nothing here over and above the fact that they are related and politicians. There is nothing more than what is on this page Bolsonaro (surname) where the only members are the same. No need for yet another Bolsonaro page dedicated to them. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It has some coverage [39] [40]. wumbolo ^^^ 21:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It isn't notable enough for Wikipedia, besides a member getting elected president of Brazil.--@Boothsift 02:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pretty sure notability by relation isn't acceptable for inclusion. Kirbanzo (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of political families#Brazil where the political offices of the father and his three oldest children are clearly indicated. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - relation does not = notability Skirts89 (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and notability isn't inherited anyways. SportingFlyer talk 17:52, 3 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.

[1] ttps://www.google.com/search?q=%22Waleed+Shahid%22&tbm=nws

[1]